(a)
(1)At any publicly noticed meeting of the governing body of an operator, a representative of a private transportation service provider may request the operator to perform a cost comparison analysis of public transit service provided by vehicles equipped with rubber tires before the governing body acts on a route restructuring or service addition under consideration. The operator may agree to perform a cost comparison analysis pursuant to this section or alternatively, may so agree on the condition that the
private transportation service provider that requested the cost comparison analysis agrees to pay the operator’s actual cost of conducting the analysis. If the operator agrees to perform the cost comparison analysis, the private transportation service provider requesting the c
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
(a)
(1)
At any publicly noticed meeting of the governing body of an operator, a representative of a private transportation service provider may request the operator to perform a cost comparison analysis of public transit service provided by vehicles equipped with rubber tires before the governing body acts on a route restructuring or service addition under consideration. The operator may agree to perform a cost comparison analysis pursuant to this section or alternatively, may so agree on the condition that the
private transportation service provider that requested the cost comparison analysis agrees to pay the operator’s actual cost of conducting the analysis. If the operator agrees to perform the cost comparison analysis, the private transportation service provider requesting the cost comparison analysis shall supply any information necessary and relevant to complete the analysis.
(2)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to require operators to perform a cost comparison analysis. At its sole discretion, the operator’s governing body may elect not to perform a cost comparison analysis. However, if the governing body determines not to perform a cost comparison analysis, it shall specify the reasons for that determination in a resolution adopted at a publicly noticed meeting.
(b)
For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1)
“Cost comparison analysis” means a study of the route restructuring or service addition under consideration by the operator, that compares the cost to the operator of directly providing those services compared to the cost to the operator of procuring those services from private entities. The study shall utilize a full cost allocation method that is consistent with generally accepted cost allocation principles.
(2)
“Route restructuring” means a permanent change in routing that decreases or increases the total number of daily transit revenue service miles or hours by 25 percent or more.
(3)
“Service addition” means an increase in the total number of daily transit revenue service miles or hours on an existing route by 50 percent or more.
(c)
If the
governing body performs a cost comparison analysis pursuant to this section, the results of the analysis shall be fully disclosed at a publicly noticed meeting.
(d)
This section does not apply to an operator in a county with less than 300,000 population or who operates less than 10 buses.
(e)
The operator may adopt appropriate procedures to implement the purposes of this section.