Docstoc

AMADOR COUNTY Transit Development Plan

Document Sample
AMADOR COUNTY Transit Development Plan Powered By Docstoc
					                      AMADOR COUNTY
                    Transit Development Plan

                               Final Report




   Prepared for the
                       Amador County Transportation Commission




      Prepared by
                       LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.




TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANTS, INC.
       Amador County

Transit Development Plan

             Final Report




            Prepared for the:

Amador County Transportation Commission
     11400 American Legion Drive
       Jackson, California 95642
            (208) 223-2877


              Prepared by:

   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
            P.O. Box 5875
     2690 Lake Forest Road, Suite C
      Tahoe City, California 96145
            (530) 583-4053



               June 24, 2008

                LSC #087040
                                   Amador County TDP Executive Summary
The Amador County Transportation Commission (ACTC) retained LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
to prepare a 5-Year Transit Development Plan to improve and enhance transit services for Fiscal Years
(FY) 2008/09 to 2012/13, through June 30, 2013. This plan document first presents and reviews the
characteristics of the study area, including demographic factors. A thorough review of existing land use
and transportation plans is then presented. The operating history of transit services is reviewed, and
demand for transit services in the study area evaluated. Finally, a detailed, financially constrained Transit
Development Plan is presented for the future improvement in Amador Regional Transit System (ARTS)
services.

Study Area

This study considers the entirety of Amador County. Population of the area in 2007 is estimated based on
U.S. Census data as 38,435. Excluding prison inmates, 18 percent was elderly (age 65 or above), 2.4
percent was mobility-limited (age 16-64), 8.0 percent were low-income, while 4.9 percent of households
did not own a private vehicle. Population from 2000 to 2007 grew at 1.7 percent per year countywide.
State projections identify a future countywide population of 54,788 by 2030. The study presents detailed
information on travel and commute patterns.

Existing Transit Services

Amador County transit services are provided through a joint powers agreement between the County and
its five incorporated cities. Existing services include local deviated fixed-route services (Routes C, I, K,
M, P, R, S and V) as well as Route X Commuter Services to downtown Sacramento, and VMRC contract
services. A Kirkwood Ski Shuttle service was initiated for the 2007/08 ski season. The service operates a
total of 14 vehicles. Systemwide ridership in 2007 on all ARTS services was 104,113 one-way passenger-
trips, an increase of 16 percent since FY 2001/02.

Other transit providers serving the study area consist of Blue Mountain Transit, the Amador Unified
School District, two taxi companies, Jackson Rancheria services, visitor tour operators, and several social
service programs. In addition, Calaveras Transit provides connecting public transit service between
Jackson and Calaveras County to the south.

Transit Development Plan

Service Plan

    Implement Jackson/Sutter Hill/Sutter Creek Express and Service Route Plan – Service to the
    Jackson/Sutter Hill/Sutter Creek area will be expanded to two routes: the “Service Route,” which
    provides service at major activity centers in the Jackson and Sutter Hill/Creek areas, and the “Express
    Route,” which will offer hourly headways and serve many of the activity centers and residential areas.
    Hours of operation will be roughly 8:00 AM through 6:00 PM. This service plan will substantially
    reduce in-vehicle travel times, provide more frequent and easy to use service, and serve new
    destinations

    Eliminate Route R – Route R service will be eliminated, as it operates well below ARTS
    performance standards. This will save approximately $45,000 per year that can be better used for
    other services.


Amador County                                                                 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan Executive Summary                                                            Page ES-1
    Revise and Expand Route I – To better serve commuters, students and other potential passengers,
    the Route I 10:00 AM departure from Sutter Hill will be eliminated, and morning and evening
    commute runs will be instituted.

    Monitor the Kirkwood Skier Service in the 2008/09 Ski Season – The operation of the Kirkwood
    Skier Service will be monitored over the 2008/09, and marketing efforts expanded. If it does not
    attain minimum performance standards (based on the number of actual passengers served), the service
    will be eliminated.

    Establish Service to the MACT Clinic – The MACT Clinic will be served on an on-call basis, with
    new runs provided between Sutter Hill and the clinic at approximately 9:30 AM and 3:30 PM, and
    deviation provided on the mid-day M4 run of Route M.

    Improve the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Policy – For ADA eligible passengers,
    deviations will be accommodated within three-quarters of a mile of the local fixed-routes. In addition,
    the ARTS Board will adopt a policy designating the Transit Manager as the ADA Administrator, and
    better define ADA policies.

    Consider a Daffodil Hill Shuttle Service – If additional funding is available, ARTS will consider
    partnering to provide a seasonal shuttle between parking lots and the Daffodil Hill area.

    Encourage Use of Foothill Rideshare – ARTS will encourage use of the Foothill Rideshare program
    to expand opportunities for commuters in and out of the Sacramento Valley Region, including
    Stockton.

    Reserve-A-Ride Taxicab Subsidy Program – A “Reserve-A-Ride” program will be instituted to
    provide Saturday and weekday evening service (Wednesday evening only, at least to start) through a
    private service subsidy program. This service is initially funded at $40,000 per year, though the
    details of this service are expected to change as actual ridership patterns are determined.

    Social Services Package Transportation – To make services more available to the outlying
    communities of Amador County and the transit dependent population in these areas, a package
    transportation program will be offered for social service programs on specific ARTS runs, so long as
    passengers are not significantly delayed.

    Revise Route M to Consistently Serve SR 88 in Buckhorn – Due to the low number of passengers
    boarding or alighting along Buckhorn Ridge Road, the additional running time needed to serve this
    road, and the benefits of providing a consistent service in both directions, Route M will be revised to
    use SR 88 except when deviation requests are received.

    Monitor and Track On-Time Performance and Deviation Requests – To provide better data for
    refining schedules and improving on-time performance, ARTS will track the on-time performance of
    the buses and will revise the schedules as warranted to allow for adequate time in between the
    scheduled stops.

    Implement a Transportation Reimbursement Program – The Transportation Reimbursement
    Program will be implemented to provide gas vouchers to qualified participants based on mileage
    estimates.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                             Amador County
Page ES-2                                                            Transit Development Plan Executive Summary
Capital Plan

    Fleet Replacement and Expansion – While no additional vehicles are needed for the TDP
    improvements, ARTS will need to replace six existing vehicles of the over the coming five years. In
    addition, particulate traps will be installed as needed to attain air quality requirements.

    Improvements to Passenger Amenities and Bus Stops – Bus benches and shelters will be installed
    at major stops. Schedules will be posted at all stops with five or more passengers per day.
    Improvements will also be made at the Main Street/California Street stop in Jackson.

    Sutter Hill Transit Center – To be located on a parcel along Valley View Way, this center will
    provide a safe and attractive location for transfers between buses, for additional park-and-ride
    activity, for driver breaks, and for pedestrian/bicycle access. Current cost estimates for this facility are
    on the order of $5.3 million, depending on final design.

    Provide an On-Board Surveillance System – ARTS will install a mobile video surveillance system
    on all commuter and local route buses to enhance security for passengers, employees, and the general
    public.

    Provide an Automatic Vehicle Location System – An Automatic Vehicle Location system will be
    implemented on the ARTS service to provide better “real time” information on vehicle location,
    improve emergency response, and reduce driver distraction.

Short-Range Institutional and Management Plan

    Increased ARTS Role as Coordinated Transportation Service Agency – ARTS will maintain and
    expand coordination efforts with social service programs in the region.

    Revise Unmet Needs Definition – ACTC will enact changes to the definition of “unmet need that is
    reasonable to meet” in order to make the unmet needs definition more clear and consistent.

    Adopt Goals, Performance Measures, and Standards – ARTS will establish specific goals,
    performance measures and standards to better measure the efficiency/effectiveness of the service, and
    conduct bi-annual reviews of services

    Marketing Improvements – ARTS will expand promotions through radio, newspaper and public
    access television, expand information to social service programs, develop and distribute rider
    information in Spanish, improve the agency website, and promote the connections available through
    ARTS to rail and air service in Sacramento.

    Marketing/Special Project Position – ARTS will establish a part-time Marketing/Special Project
    position to enhance marketing efforts, help in the implementation of the TDP plan elements, and
    serve as the liaison with the Social Services Transportation Advisory Committee.

    Hold Regular Staff Meetings With Bus Drivers and Maintenance Personnel – Existing driver
    safety meetings will be expanded to include discussions regarding service or passenger issues and
    potential solutions, with follow-up by administrative staff.

    Provide Dispatch Service During All ARTS Operating Hours – ARTS will revise or expand
    dispatch hours to ensure that a dispatcher is available while all routes are in operation (until 7:15
    PM).

Amador County                                                                  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan Executive Summary                                                             Page ES-3
Financial Plan

    Modifications to Fares – Reflecting the increases in operating costs, the Local Route fare will be
    increased from $1.00 to $1.25 for the general public and from $0.50 to $0.60 for elderly/disabled.
    Monthly passes will be increased from $34 to $40 for the general public and from $17 to $20 for
    elderly/disabled. General public passengers will be charged an additional $1.00 per deviation request,
    while elderly/disabled passengers not qualified under the ADA will be charged $0.50. Fares for the
    Route X segment between Sutter Hill and Rancho Murieta will be increased from $1.25 to $1.75 for
    the general public and from $0.75 to $1.00 for senior/disabled. Additional fare increases may be
    necessary to address future changes in operating costs or subsidy funding.

    Make Full Use of Existing Subsidy Funding Sources – ARTS existing funding sources (LTF, FTA,
    Sacramento County, Proposition 1B, CMAQ, Transportation Enhancement, etc.) will continue to be
    used to fund operating and capital plans.

    Pursue a new FTA Section 5316 Jobs Access and Reverse Commute Grant – This source will be
    pursued to fund half of the increase in operating subsidies needed to provide the new Route S Express
    route, and to expand the schedule on Route I to serve commuters.

In total, operating revenues are forecast to exceed operating costs for every year of the plan. The financial
plan indicates that the plan elements can be fully funded, while still generating a positive Capital Fund
balance that will grow to approximately $898,000 by the end of the plan period. Overall, the TDP will
expand transit ridership by at least 11 percent, will better allow ARTS services to serve a wider segment
of the population, and will position the transit program to help the community address the expanding need
for alternatives to private vehicle transportation.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                             Amador County
Page ES-4                                                            Transit Development Plan Executive Summary
                                               TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter                                                                                                                                              Page

1     Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1

2     Setting for Transportation Services..................................................................................................... 3
          Amador County Background........................................................................................................ 3
          Major Transit Activity Centers..................................................................................................... 3
          Employment.................................................................................................................................. 6
          Population..................................................................................................................................... 7
          Long Range Plans and Forecasts ................................................................................................ 13
          Transit and Transportation Related Goals .................................................................................. 27

3     Transportation Services..................................................................................................................... 31
         Amador Regional Transit System............................................................................................... 31
         Other Transportation Services in Amador County ..................................................................... 54

4     Transit Demand Analysis.................................................................................................................. 59
         Existing Transit Demand ............................................................................................................ 59
         Forecast of Future Transit Demand ............................................................................................ 64
         Unmet Needs Hearings ............................................................................................................... 65
         Rural Master Planned Community Transit Demand................................................................... 68

5     Amador County Goals and Objectives Analysis............................................................................... 73
        Background................................................................................................................................. 73
        Review of Existing Adopted Goals ............................................................................................ 73
        Recommended Goals, Performance Measures, and Standards................................................... 76

6     Service Alternatives .......................................................................................................................... 83
          Deviated Fixed-Route Service Alternatives ............................................................................... 83
          Commuter Service Alternatives.................................................................................................. 92
          Other Service Alternatives.......................................................................................................... 94
          Comparison of Short-Range Service Alternatives.................................................................... 102

7     Capital Alternatives......................................................................................................................... 111
         Vehicle Alternatives ................................................................................................................. 111
         Passenger Facilities................................................................................................................... 116
         Advanced Public Transit System Technologies ....................................................................... 118

8     Institutional and Management Alternatives .................................................................................... 123
          Increased ARTS Role as Coordinated Transportation Service Agency ................................... 123
          Unmet Needs Definition ........................................................................................................... 123
          Marketing Improvements.......................................................................................................... 125

9     Financial Alternatives ..................................................................................................................... 131
          Federal Transit Funding Sources .............................................................................................. 131
          State Transit Funding Sources .................................................................................................. 133
          Local Transit Funding Sources................................................................................................. 134
          Increased Passenger Revenues ................................................................................................. 135


Amador County                                                                                                  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                                                   Page i
 10     Transit Development Plan............................................................................................................... 139
           Service Plan .............................................................................................................................. 139
           Capital Plan............................................................................................................................... 148
           Institutional/Management Plan................................................................................................. 152
           Financial Plan ........................................................................................................................... 158
           Implementation Plan................................................................................................................. 166

 Appendix A – Boarding Activity
 Appendix B – Recommended Attachment A to Reserve-A-Ride Contract

                                                       LIST OF TABLES
 Table                                                                                                                                           Page

 1      Amador County Unemployment ......................................................................................................... 6
 2      Major Employers in Amador County.................................................................................................. 8
 3      Historical Amador County Population................................................................................................ 8
 4      Amador County 2000 Census Data by Tract ...................................................................................... 9
 5      Amador County Mode to Work ........................................................................................................ 16
 6      Amador County Commuter Flow...................................................................................................... 17
 7      Amador County 2000 School Enrollment by Census Tract .............................................................. 19
 8      Summary of Planned and Approved Large Residential Development
         in Amador County........................................................................................................................... 22
 9      Amador County Population Forecast ................................................................................................ 23
10      Amador County Transportation Model Demographic Data.............................................................. 24
11      Existing and Forecast Daily Traffic Volumes on Key Roadways in Amador County...................... 26
12      ARTS FY 2006-07 Revenues............................................................................................................ 36
13      Local Transportation Fund History ................................................................................................... 37
14      ARTS Fiscal Year 2006-07 Expenses & Cost Allocation................................................................. 39
15      Annual Operating Data and Route Evaluation – Calendar Year 2007.............................................. 40
16      Annual ARTS Ridership by Route and Run – January 2007 through December 2007 .................... 43
17      Monthly Ridership by Route – January 2007 through December 2007............................................ 44
18      Annual Fare Passenger Type by Route, January 2007 through December 2007 .............................. 45
19      ARTS Vehicle Fleet .......................................................................................................................... 52
20      Estimated General Public Employee Transit Demand ...................................................................... 60
21      Amador County Rural Non-Program Transit Demand ..................................................................... 61
22      Amador County Rural Program-Related Transit Demand ................................................................ 62
23      Total Transit Demand in Amador County......................................................................................... 64
24      Forecast of Future Amador County Demand for Transit Service ..................................................... 66
25      Ridership Generated by Rural Master-Planned Communities .......................................................... 70
26      Amador County Goals and Standards for Transit Service ................................................................ 77
27      Amador County Service Alternatives ............................................................................................... 88
28      Amador County Transit Service Alternatives Performance Analysis............................................. 103
29      Example of Simplified Schedule Format ........................................................................................ 129
30      Rural California Transit Systems Fare Review, 2008..................................................................... 137
31      Peer Fare Review on Downtown Sacramento Commuter Services ................................................ 137
32      Estimated Reserve-A-Ride Fares .................................................................................................... 146
33      CARB Compliance Schedule for ARTS Transit Fleet.................................................................... 150
34      ARTS Air & Rail Connections in Sacramento................................................................................ 156
35      Amador County TDP – Estimated Operating Costs........................................................................ 160

 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                                                               Amador County
 Page ii                                                                                                                  Transit Development Plan
36     Amador County TDP – Estimated Ridership .................................................................................. 161
37     Amador County TDP – Estimated Farebox Revenues.................................................................... 162
38     Amador County TDP Capital Plan.................................................................................................. 163
39     Amador County TDP Financial Plan .............................................................................................. 165




                                                 LIST OF FIGURES
 Figure                                                                                                                                 Page

 1     Amador County Site and Location Map ............................................................................................. 4
 2     Amador County Population by Census Tract.................................................................................... 10
 3     Amador County Elderly Population by Census Tract ....................................................................... 11
 4     Amador County Below Poverty by Census Tract ............................................................................. 12
 5     Amador County Zero Vehicle Households by Census Tract ............................................................ 14
 6     Amador County Mobility Limited Population by Census Tract ....................................................... 15
 7     Counties to which Amador County Residents Commute.................................................................. 18
 8     Counties from which Amador County Employees Commute........................................................... 18
 9     Amador County Bus Routes.............................................................................................................. 33
10     Transportation Development Act Funding History........................................................................... 38
11     Total Annual Ridership by Route, January 2007 – December 2007................................................. 41
12     Annual Ridership Per Vehicle Service Hour by Route ..................................................................... 47
13     Annual Ridership Per Vehicle Service Mile by Route...................................................................... 47
14     Total Annual Operating Costs by Route ........................................................................................... 49
15     Annual Operating Cost Per Passenger Trip by Route ....................................................................... 49
16     Annual Operating Farebox Return Ratio by Route ........................................................................... 50
17     Annual Subsidy Per Passenger Trip by Route .................................................................................. 50
18     Forecast of Future Transit Demand................................................................................................... 67
19     Sutter Creek – Jackson Fixed/Service Route Alternatives................................................................ 85
20     Annual Ridership Change by Alternative ....................................................................................... 104
21     Annual Operating Subsidy Change by Alternative ......................................................................... 105
22     Operating Subsidy Per Passenger Trip............................................................................................ 106
23     Passenger Trips Per Vehicle Service Hour ..................................................................................... 107
24     Alternative Farebox Return Ratio ................................................................................................... 108
25     Amador County Transit Plan .......................................................................................................... 140
26     Sutter Creek – Jackson Fixed/Service Route Alternative ............................................................... 141




 Amador County                                                                                       LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
 Transit Development Plan                                                                                                       Page iii
                                                                                                 Chapter 1
                                                                                       Introduction
Transportation considerations play a key role in the quality of life provided by any community. Access to
social services and medical services, employment opportunities, educational resources and basic
necessities are topics of universal concern, as they have a strong impact on the economy, ease of
movement, and quality of life for the residents of an area. In addition to providing mobility to residents
without easy access to a private automobile, transit services can provide a wide range of economic
development and environmental benefits.

The Amador County Transportation Commission, aware of the importance of transportation issues, has
retained LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. to prepare a Transit Development Plan (TDP) for the
County and its communities. This study provides an opportunity to develop plans that will tailor transit
services to current conditions and guide the development of transit programs over the coming five years
that will best match the expected changes in the region. While the primary goal is to provide effective
transportation to all of those who need it, a number of issues are being closely evaluated in this study,
including the following:

    Population Growth and Development: The population of Amador County is expected to increase as
    a result of increased development, including casinos, large residential and commercial/retail
    developments. Due to its proximity to Sacramento and other large employment areas as well as its
    attractive setting, the County is becoming a bedroom community, with residents commuting to these
    other areas. Further, the growth in population also includes an increase in the senior/aging population,
    of which many are transit dependent. Growth and new development patterns may warrant changes in
    current service strategies.

    Transit Service Marketing: Ridership on the Amador County transit services has increased slightly
    over the past five years. While ridership has grown on the fixed routes, new services have been added
    that are not resulting in significant ridership numbers, including the ski shuttle to Kirkwood. Further,
    new services such as the Amador/Sacramento Express could attract many more riders than it has since
    the route’s inception. An increase in passengers due to new marketing efforts would help to alleviate
    the financial strain currently faced by ARTS due to lack of ridership on these services.

    Coordination of Services: There are a variety of existing public, non-profit, and private
    transportation services serving Amador County. While some services benefit from shared
    management or operations (such as the ARTS contract for VMRC service), maximizing the
    coordination of services is a key strategy to make the most of limited funding for passenger
    transportation services.

    Expanded Route and Casino Service: The Jackson Rancheria is the largest employer in the County,
    and therefore produces significant employee demand for transit. Further, new medical clinics serving
    low income and tribal residents located near the Jackson Rancheria casino are in high demand for
    transit service, as existing routes do not currently serve these areas adequately, particularly from Ione
    and Camanche where there are larger concentrations of low income housing development.

This study report presents and reviews the characteristics of the study area, including demographic
factors. A thorough review of existing land use and transportation plans is then presented, focusing on the
factors that impact the need for public transportation services. The operating characteristics of the transit
services provided in the study area is then reviewed, and the lessons learned from the service changes


Amador County                                                                LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                 Page 1
implemented as a result of previous plan efforts are analyzed. The document also includes an updated
analysis of the demand for transit services in the study area through 2012/13. The final report affords the
leaders and transportation providers of the area an opportunity to take an in-depth look at the transit
system currently in place, choose the optimal manner in which transit can meet the public’s needs within
this dynamic area, and carefully identify where transit resources should be devoted over the plan period.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                            Amador County
Page 2                                                                                Transit Development Plan
                                                                                                Chapter 2
                                            Setting For Transportation Services
AMADOR COUNTY BACKGROUND
Amador County is in the heart of California’s Gold Country, bordered by Sacramento County and San
Joaquin County to the west, El Dorado County to the north, Alpine County to the east, and Calaveras
County to the south. The closest major cities are Sacramento and Stockton (each about 45 miles from
Amador County). The major north-south road is State Route (SR) 49, and the major east-west road is SR
88. The five incorporated cities of Amador County are Jackson (the County seat), Ione, Amador City,
Plymouth and Sutter Creek. Figure 1 presents Amador County and its communities.

European settlement of Amador County accompanied the Gold Rush 150 years ago. Rich in history and
agriculture (it is home to an increasing number of wineries), its tourism industry flourishes. Other
industries in the County include lumber, mining, and agriculture. The County is also increasingly
attractive as a second-home or retirement area.

Existing Land Use

Amador County, approximately 568 square miles in size, stretches from the Sacramento Valley, through
the foothills to the Sierra Nevada mountain range. Elevations range from 200 feet in the west, to over
9,000 feet in the east, with a large diversity in climate and terrain. Development within the County is
concentrated in Ione, Jackson, and Sutter Creek, with the unincorporated areas of the County growing the
fastest, particularly in the “Upcountry” region of Pine Grove and Pioneer. The Jackson Rancheria casino,
located off SR 88 east of Jackson, serves as a major activity and employment center for residents of the
County and surrounding areas.

MAJOR TRANSIT ACTIVITY CENTERS
It is helpful to identify the existing areas in Amador County that may generate transit ridership. Below are
lists of major community activity centers in Amador County based on the type of person or activity being
served. They include the following:

Retail Concentrations

The primary retail-shopping areas in Amador include Plymouth, Sutter Creek, Martell, Jackson, Ione Pine
Grove, and Pioneer. Other retail centers include:

  Ione: Downtown on Preston Avenue and Main              Martell: K-Mart, Wal-Mart, the Amador Plaza
  Street                                                 shopping center on SR 88, and the Martell
                                                         Business Park between SR 49, 88, and 104
  Jackson: Along SR 49                                   Pine Grove: Primarily along SR 88
  Plymouth: Primarily along Main Street and SR           Pioneer: Primarily along SR 88
  49
  Sutter Creek: Downtown (Old Hwy 49) and
  Sutter Hill (SR 49/104)



Amador County                                                               LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                Page 3
                                                                                                                       FIGURE 1




Page 4
                                                                                                Amador County Site and Location Map
                                                                             50                                                                                                    88



                                                                                                                        EL DORADO COUNTY
                                                                                  49




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                                                                                   RIVER PINES

                                                                                                                                                   HAMS STATION
                                                                                                                                            COOKS STATION

                                                                                                   FIDDLETOWN

                                                       16               PLYMOUTH

                                                                                                                      MACE MEADOW
                                                                                                            VOLCANO
                                                                                                                       PIONEER                                                             4
                                                                                           AMADOR COUNTY
                                                                                                       PINE GROVE

                                                                         124
                                                                             AMADOR CITY   SUTTER CREEK
                                                       104
                                                                                           SUTTER HILL

                                                                      IONE
                                                                                                 JACKSON
                                                                                                                       104
                                                                        BUENA VISTA

                                                                                                                                                                    LEGEND
                                                                                                                             SCALE                            MAJOR HIGHWAYS
                                                           CAMANCHE                                                                                           MAJOR ROADS/MINOR HIGHWAYS
                                                      88                                                                0               5
                                                                                                                                                              LAKES
                                                                                                                             IN MILES                         COUNTY BOUNDARY
                                                                                                                                                              URBAN AREA
                                                                                                                                                              TOWN


                                                                                                                      CALAVERAS COUNTY                             TUOLUMNE COUNTY
                                                TRANSPORTATION




Transit Development Plan
          Amador County
                                       AaAMADORSITE
                                                CONSULTANTS, INC.
                                                                                           26              49                                        4
Activity Centers for Seniors, Persons with Disabilities, and Low-Income Persons

  Amador County Department of Social                 Amador Residential Care
  Services/Mental Health Services                    155 Placer Drive, Jackson
  10877 Conductor Blvd Sutter Creek, CA              (assisted Senior living)
  Amador County Senior Center                        Amador-Tuolumne Community
  229 New York Ranch Road, Jackson                   Action Agency
                                                     935 South SR 49, Jackson
  The Arc of Amador and Calaveras                    WIC Program
  75 Academy Drive, Jackson                          Amador and Calaveras Counties
                                                     12356 Martell Road, Martell
  The Arc Whole Life Services                        Jackson Gardens Elder Care Home
  218 Water Street, Jackson, CA                      185 Placer Drive, Jackson, CA
  Gold Quartz Inn Senior Retirement Home             Oak Manor Senior Retirement Home
  15 Bryson Drive, Sutter Creek                      223 New York Ranch Road, Jackson

Medical Facilities

  Sutter Amador Hospital                             Kit Carson Nursing & Rehabilitation Center
  200 Mission Blvd., Jackson                         811 Court Street, Jackson
  Plymouth Center                                    Sutter Amador Pediatric
  9279 Locust Street, Plymouth                       601 Court Street, Suite 200, Jackson
  Pioneer Center                                     Jackson Rancheria Health Complex
  24685 SR 88, Pioneer                               15515 Dalton's Drive, Jackson
  Sutter Amador Women’s Services                     Sutter Amador Family Practice
  100 Mission Blvd., Suite 2800, Jackson             255 New York Ranch Road, Jackson

Government

  Jackson City Hall                                  Amador City Hall
  33 Broadway, Jackson                               14531 E. School Street
  Municipal Court and Superior Court                 Amador County Offices
  500 Argonaut Lane, Jackson                         810 Court Street, Jackson
  Public Health Department                           Ione City Hall
  10877 Conductor Blvd, Sutter Creek                 1 East Main Street, Ione
  Sutter Creek City Hall                             Plymouth City Hall
  18 Main Street, Sutter Creek                       9426 Main Street, Plymouth

Recreation & Tourism

    Shenandoah Valley Wineries
    Jackson Rancheria Casino, Hotel and Conference Center, Jackson
    Black Chasm Cavern, Pine Grove
    Kirkwood Ski Resort, Kirkwood
    Lake Camanche

Amador County                                                          LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                           Page 5
    Amador County Fairgrounds, Plymouth
    Lake Pardee Marina, Ione
    Lake Amador
    Lake Tabeau
    Amador County Recreation Agency (ACRA)

Education

  Argonaut High School                                          Jackson Elementary School
  501 Argonaut Lane, Jackson                                    220 Church Street
  Amador High School                                            Jackson Jr. High
  330 Spanish Street, Sutter Creek                              333 Rex Avenue
  Independence High School                                      Pine Grove Elementary
  525 Independence Drive, Sutter Creek                          20101 SR 88
  (alternative and adult education)
  Ione Elementary School                                        Pioneer Elementary
  415 South Ione Street                                         24625 SR 88
  Sutter Creek Primary School                                   Plymouth Elementary
  110 Broad Street                                              Fair and Main Street
  Ione Junior High School                                       Sutter Creek Elementary
  430 Mill Street                                               340 Spanish Street


EMPLOYMENT
Amador has recorded an increasing civilian labor force, from an average of 15,616 in 2002 to an average
of 17,670 in 2007. However, the County experienced increasing unemployment rates over these years. In
recent years, the unemployment rates in Amador County have been slightly higher than the state average,
ranging from 5.8 percent in 2002 to 6.8 percent in 2007, as presented in Table 1.


                      TABLE 1: Amador County Unemployment
                            Year          Amador County         State of California

                            2002                5.8%                    6.7%

                            2003                6.2%                    6.8%

                            2004                5.8%                    6.2%

                            2005                5.6%                    5.4%

                            2006                5.3%                    4.9%

                            2007                6.8%                    6.1%

                      Source: California Employment Development Department, 2008.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                                  Amador County
Page 6                                                                                      Transit Development Plan
Major Employers

Table 2 lists the major employers in Amador County. As presented, the top employer is the Jackson
Rancheria located outside of Jackson, which employs over ten percent of the Countywide labor force.
Other large employers include Mule Creek State Prison, Kirkwood Mountain Ski Resort, area schools,
government agencies, Sutter Amador Hospital and numerous retail businesses.

POPULATION
Table 3 presents the historical population growth for the County. As indicated, the population has
increased from 11,821 in 1970 to 35,400 in 2000 to an estimated 38,435 in 2007. Of the total population
in 2000, the US Census indicates that 3,582 were in correctional institutions (virtually all in Mule Creek
State Prison near Ione). The prison currently houses 3,832 inmates, indicating that the 2007 Countywide
population excluding prison inmates is approximately 34,603. Between 1990 and 2000, Amador County’s
population increased by 5,361, or 1.7 percent annually. The growth in Amador County from 2000 to 2007
is slightly more than the statewide average, which grew by 1.5 percent per year in the same period. Ione is
the largest city in Amador County (7,842), followed by Jackson (4,317) and Sutter Creek (2,945).

Transit-Dependent Population

Nationwide, transit system ridership is drawn largely from various groups of persons who make up what
is often called the “transit dependent” population. This category includes elderly persons, persons with
disabilities, low-income persons, and members of households with no available vehicles. There is
considerable overlap among these groups.

Table 4 presents the transit dependent population by census tract in Amador County from the 2000 U.S.
Census. Figure 2 presents the census divisions in the area, as well as the population in each census tract.
As presented in the table, the Countywide population in 2000 was 35,100 (per Census data, including
prison inmates). Tract 3.02, which includes portions of Jackson and Sutter Creek west of SR 49, as well
as the southern half of Ione and all of Camanche Village, is the most populous tract with 7,067 residents.
Tract 1, which includes the “upcountry” areas including Kirkwood, Volcano and Pioneer, is the second
most populous, with 6,076 residents.

There are an estimated 6,329 persons aged 65 or over residing in the study area (or 18.0 percent of the
total population). This percentage is especially high – 26.0 percent – in Tract 4.01 (the heart of the
County including portions of Jackson and Sutter Creek east of SR 49). The upcountry area (Tract 1) also
has a high percentage of elderly (24.7 percent). Only 3.9 percent of the population of Tract 3.01 (which
includes the north portion of Ione) is aged 65 or over, though this reflects prison inmates in the total
population. This data is presented graphically in Figure 3.

The number of low-income persons, another likely market for transit services, is measured by the number
of persons living below the poverty level. An estimated 2,808 people live below the poverty level within
the study area, representing 8.0 percent of the total population (compared with 13.9 percent statewide).
The percentage of those persons living below poverty status is highest (around 10 percent) in Tracts 1, 2,
and 3.02 (the eastern, northern, and southeastern portions of the County, respectively). See Figure 4 for
details.

The number of households without access to an available vehicle is estimated at 738, as presented in the
Table 4 above. This represents 4.9 percent of the total households in the area (compared with 8.9 percent
statewide). The percentage of zero-vehicle households is highest in Tract 5 (the southern portion of the


Amador County                                                                LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                 Page 7
                          TABLE 2: Major Employers in Amador County

                                                                                    Number of
                          Employer                                                  Employees

                          Jackson Rancheria                                           2,000
                          Mule Creek State Prison                                     1,300
                          Kirkwood Mountain Ski Resort (winter)                        800
                          Amador Unified School District                               600
                          County of Amador                                             540
                          Preston School of Industry                                   520
                          Sutter Amador Hospital                                       400
                          Wal-Mart                                                     290
                          Volcano Telephone Company                                    110
                          Raley's Grocery Store                                        100
                          Kit Carson Care Center                                       150
                          Safeway Stores, Inc.                                         150
                          Lowe's                                                       130
                          Renwood Winery                                               120
                          K-Mart                                                        85
                          Prospect Motors                                              95
                          Albertsons                                                   79
                          Pine Grove Group                                             70
                          North American Refactories                                   60
                          ACM Machinery                                                60
                          One-Stop Markets                                             55

                          Source: Amador County Chamber of Commerce




         TABLE 3: Historical Amador County Population


            Year                                  Countywide Population                Annual Growth Rate

            1970                                             11,821                                --
            1980                                             19,314                              5.0%
            1990                                             30,039                              4.5%
            2000                                             35,400                              1.7%
            2007                                             38,435                              1.2%

                                                2007 Population by City
                      Amador City                          214                                     --
                      Ione                                7,842                                    --
                      Jackson                             4,317                                    --
                      Plymouth                            1,050                                    --
                      Sutter Creek                        2,945                                    --
                      Unincorporated                     22,067                                    --

        Source: California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit, 2008.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                                      Amador County
Page 8                                                                                          Transit Development Plan
Amador County
Transit Development Plan
                                       TABLE 4: Amador County 2000 Census Data by Tract
                                                                                                                                                                                                  Persons Living
                                                                                                                                                                        Elderly Residents         Below Poverty             Zero-Vehicle           Mobility-Limited
                                                                                                                                                                            (age 65+)                 Status                Households               Residents
                                                                                                                                              Not In
                                                                                                                Total    In Correctional   Correctional   Housing                  Percent of               Percent of               Percent of   Age 16 to Percent of
                                       Census Tract Number & Area Description                                 Population     Facility        Facility      Units         Total       Tract        Total       Tract        Total       Tract         64       Tract

                                           1    High Country (Kirkwood, Pioneer)                                6,076           0             6,076         3,870       1,500       24.7%         596         9.8%          94         2.4%         132       2.2%

                                           2    North County (Plymouth, Amador City)                            4,496           0             4,496         2,155        786        17.5%         466        10.4%          65         3.0%         116       2.6%

                                        3.01    Northwest County (Part of Ione, to Sac. Co. line)               5,655         3,457           2,198          586         219         3.9%         100         1.8%          48         8.2%          46       0.8%

                                        3.02    Southwest County (Parts of Ione & Sutter Creek)                 7,067           0             7,067         3,005        967        13.7%         722        10.2%         129         4.3%         185       2.6%

                                        4.01    Central County (parts of Sutter Creek, Jackson, Pine Grove)     4,480          25             4,455         2,100       1,165       26.0%         334         7.5%         139         6.6%          92       2.1%

                                        4.02    Central County (parts of Jackson, Rancheria, Pine Grove)        4,666          80             4,586         2,057       1,152       24.7%         377         8.1%         127         6.2%         197       4.2%

                                           5    South County (parts of Jackson, Pine Acres)                     2,660           0             2,660         1,262        540        20.3%         213         8.0%         136        10.8%          87       3.3%

                                                                                           Amador County        35,100        3,562          31,538        15,035       6,329       18.0%        2,808        8.0%         738         4.9%         855       2.4%



                                                                                        State of California   33,871,648                                  12,214,549   3,586,794    10.6%       4,706,130    13.9%       1,091,214     8.9%       1,718,472   5.1%

                                       Source: U.S. Census and LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                            Page 9
Page 10
                                                                                                                                    FIGURE 2
                                                                                                                                                                                             88
                                                                                                Amador County Population by Census Tract




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                                                                     49

                                                                                                     RIVER PINES                                             HAMS STATION
                                                                                                                                                       COOKS STATION

                                                                                                        FIDDLETOWN
                                                                                                                                                                 0600500100
                                                                                                                                                                    6,076
                                                 16                                       PLYMOUTH
                                                                                                0600500200
                                                                                                   4,496
                                                                                                                           VOLCANO
                                                           0600500301
                                                              5,655                                                                   PIONEER
                                                                                                                   PINE GROVE            104
                                                                               124                   0600500401
                                                                               AMADOR CITY           4,480  0600500402
                                          104                                                   SUTTER CREEK     4,666
                                                                                  SUTTER HILL

                                                                        IONE
                                                                                                      JACKSON

                                                                                                 0600500500
                                                                         BUENA VISTA                2,660
                                                                                                            49
                                                                    0600500302
                                                                       7,067                                                             LEGEND
                                                                                                                                     MAJOR ROADS/HIGHWAYS
                                                      88                                                                             LAKES                                        SCALE
                                                                                                                                     COUNTY BOUNDARY                          0                   5
                                                                                                                                $    TOWN
                                                                                                                                     CENSUS TRACT BOUNDARY                        IN MILES
                                                                                                                            100      CENSUS TRACT NUMBER
                                                                                                                            100      2000 POPULATION

                                                TRANSPORTATION




                                       AMADORTRACTS
                                                CONSULTANTS, INC.




Transit Development Plan
          Amador County
                                                                                                                          FIGURE 3
                                                                                                                                                                                     88




Amador County
                                                                                   Amador County Elderly Population by Census Tract




Transit Development Plan
                                                                              49

                                                                                              RIVER PINES                                              HAMS STATION
                                                                                                                                                 COOKS STATION

                                                                                                 FIDDLETOWN

                                              16                                   PLYMOUTH



                                                                                                                      VOLCANO
                                                                                                                                PIONEER
                                                                                                            PINE GROVE             104
                                                                        124
                                                                        AMADOR CITY
                                         104                                             SUTTER CREEK
                                                                           SUTTER HILL

                                                                 IONE
                                                                                               JACKSON


                                                                  BUENA VISTA
                                                                                                     49
                                                                                                                                  LEGEND
                                                                                                                         MAJOR ROADS/HIGHWAYS
                                                                                                                         LAKES
                                                   88                                                             $      TOWN                                             SCALE
                                                                                                                         CENSUS TRACT BOUNDARY                        0                   5
                                                                                                                         0-10% ELDERLY POPULATION
                                                                                                                         10-20% ELDERLY POPULATION                        IN MILES
                                                                                                                         20-26% ELDERLY POPULATION
                                                                                                                         26-27% ELDERLY POPULATION




                                       AMADOROLD
                                             TRANSPORTATION




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                           Page 11
                                             CONSULTANTS, INC.
                                                                                                                          FIGURE 4




Page 12
                                                                                                                                                                                    88
                                                                     Amador County Below Poverty Level by Census Tract




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                                                               49

                                                                                               RIVER PINES                                            HAMS STATION
                                                                                                                                                COOKS STATION

                                                                                                  FIDDLETOWN

                                               16                                   PLYMOUTH



                                                                                                                      VOLCANO
                                                                                                                                PIONEER
                                                                                                             PINE GROVE            104
                                                                         124
                                                                         AMADOR CITY
                                          104                                             SUTTER CREEK
                                                                            SUTTER HILL

                                                                  IONE
                                                                                                JACKSON


                                                                   BUENA VISTA
                                                                                                      49
                                                                                                                                LEGEND
                                                                                                                      MAJOR ROADS/HIGHWAYS
                                                                                                                      LAKES
                                                    88                                                                                                                   SCALE
                                                                                                                  $   TOWN
                                                                                                                      CENSUS TRACT BOUNDARY                          0                   5
                                                                                                                      0-7.3% BELOW POVERTY POPULATION
                                                                                                                      7.3-8% BELOW POVERTY POPULATION                    IN MILES
                                                                                                                      8-10.3 BELOW POVERTY POPULATION
                                                                                                                      10.3-11% BELOW POVERTY POPULATION




                                       AMADORPOOR
                                              TRANSPORTATION




Transit Development Plan
          Amador County
                                              CONSULTANTS, INC.
County including portions of Jackson and Pine Acres), where 10.8 percent of the households have no
access to a vehicle, followed by Tract 3.01 (the northwest portion of the County, excluding prison
inmates), where 8.2 of the households have no access to a vehicle. Only 3.0 percent or fewer of the
households in Tracts 1 and 2 have no access to a vehicle. This is presented graphically in Figure 5.

The Census Bureau defines “mobility limited” as having a health condition lasting more than six months
that makes it difficult to go outside alone. Currently it is estimated that 855 mobility-limited persons
between the ages of 16 and 64 reside in the study area, which comprise 2.4 percent of the County’s
population. Statewide, the percent of persons who were reported as mobility-limited in this age range in
2000 was 5.1 percent. The majority of those with mobility limitations reside in Tract 4.02 in the central
portion of the County (197 residents) and Tract 1 in the high country (132 residents). This information is
presented graphically in Figure 6.

Means of Transportation to Work

Table 5 presents the means of transportation to work for employed Amador County residents according to
the 2000 U.S. Census. Countywide, 67.9 percent of employed residents drove alone, while 19.2 percent
carpooled (compared with 71.8 percent and 14.5 percent statewide). In addition, 5.6 percent walked, 1.6
percent bicycled, 0.1 percent used public transportation, 1.9 percent used other means of transport, and
3.6 percent worked at home. All of the workers who used public transit resided in Tracts 1, 2 and 4.01.

Commute Patterns

Commuting patterns to and from Amador County are presented in Table 6 and in Figures 7 and 8. As
presented, the large majority of Amador County employed residents work within the County. In terms of
external commuters, 10.3 percent of Amador County employed residents work in Sacramento County and
9.5 percent of Calaveras County employed residents work in Amador County. Relatively few Amador
County employed residents work in nearby San Joaquin County (4.4 percent) or Calaveras County (2.5
percent).

School Enrollment

Students, particularly between the ages of 10 and16, are another population element with a relatively high
potential to use transit services. Table 7 presents school enrollment figures. As indicated, a total of 8,109
students reside in the County. Of these, 1,810 students (5.3 percent of the Countywide population) are in
the age range most likely to need transportation to and from school or to after school programs. The
Amador Community Assessment (2005) shows that Kindergarten - 12 school enrollment has remained
relatively steady from 2000 to 2003. Special education enrollment increased by 6.2 percent from 2000 to
2003.

LONG RANGE PLANS AND FORECASTS
Planned Land Use

Amador County is steadily growing. The County, which is heavily dependent on tourism, is slowly
developing other industries as well. Major casinos, such as the Jackson Rancheria, have been developed,
with the potential for other casinos in the Ione and Plymouth areas. Further, expansion of the Kirkwood
Ski area results in increased tourist-based population, while more business and commercial developments
are planned, particularly in the Martell, Jackson, Sutter Creek (Sutter Hill), Ione, and Plymouth areas. In



Amador County                                                                LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                Page 13
Page 14
                                                                                                                              FIGURE 5
                                                                                                                                                                                         88
                                                                             Amador County Zero Vehicle Households by Census Tract




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                                                                  49

                                                                                                  RIVER PINES                                              HAMS STATION
                                                                                                                                                     COOKS STATION

                                                                                                     FIDDLETOWN

                                                  16                                   PLYMOUTH



                                                                                                                          VOLCANO
                                                                                                                                    PIONEER
                                                                                                                PINE GROVE             104
                                                                            124
                                                                            AMADOR CITY
                                           104                                               SUTTER CREEK
                                                                               SUTTER HILL

                                                                     IONE
                                                                                                   JACKSON


                                                                      BUENA VISTA
                                                                                                         49
                                                                                                                                     LEGEND
                                                                                                                             MAJOR ROADS/HIGHWAYS
                                                        88                                                                   LAKES                                            SCALE
                                                                                                                      $      TOWN                                         0                   5
                                                                                                                             CENSUS TRACT BOUNDARY
                                                                                                                             0-4% ZERO VEHICLE HOUSEHOLDS                     IN MILES
                                                                                                                             4-5% ZERO VEHICLE HOUSEHOLDS
                                                                                                                             5-8% ZERO VEHICLE HOUSEHOLDS
                                                                                                                             8-12% ZERO VEHICLE HOUSEHOLDS




Transit Development Plan
          Amador County
                                                 TRANSPORTATION




                                       AMADORMOBILITY
                                                 CONSULTANTS, INC.
                                                                                                                               FIGURE 6
                                                                                                                                                                                            88




Amador County
                                                                     Amador County Mobility Limited Population by Census Tract




Transit Development Plan
                                                                                   49

                                                                                                   RIVER PINES                                                HAMS STATION
                                                                                                                                                        COOKS STATION

                                                                                                      FIDDLETOWN

                                                  16                                    PLYMOUTH



                                                                                                                           VOLCANO
                                                                                                                                     PIONEER
                                                                                                                 PINE GROVE             104
                                                                             124
                                                                             AMADOR CITY
                                           104                                                SUTTER CREEK
                                                                                SUTTER HILL

                                                                      IONE
                                                                                                    JACKSON


                                                                       BUENA VISTA
                                                                                                          49
                                                                                                                                       LEGEND
                                                                                                                              MAJOR ROADS/HIGHWAYS
                                                                                                                              LAKES
                                                        88                                                             $      TOWN                                               SCALE
                                                                                                                              CENSUS TRACT BOUNDARY                          0                   5
                                                                                                                              0-2% MOBILITY LIMITED POPULATION
                                                                                                                              2-2.4% MOBILITY LIMITED POPULATION                 IN MILES
                                                                                                                              2.4-3% MOBILITY LIMITED POPULATION
                                                                                                                              3-4.5% MOBILITY LIMITED POPULATION




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                           Page 15
                                                 TRANSPORTATION




                                       AMADORMOBILITY
                                                 CONSULTANTS, INC.
Page 16
                                       TABLE 5: Amador County Mode to Work
                                                                                                                  Car, truck, or van
                                                                                                                                           Public                                                  Other     Worked
                                       Census Tract Number & Area Description                                  Drove alone Carpooled   Transportation:   Railroad Motorcycle   Bicycle   Walked    Means     at Home



                                           1    High Country (Kirkwood, Pioneer)                                  1,633        372           8             8         10          0         64        25        138




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                           2    North County (Plymouth, Amador City)                              1,633        301           19            0          8          4         52        8         104


                                        3.01    Northwest County (Part of Ione, to Sac. Co. line)                  366         140           0             0         33          0         82        1         38


                                        3.02    Southwest County (Parts of Ione & Sutter Creek)                   2,646        359           0             0          0          7        158        25        125


                                        4.01    Central County (parts of Sutter Creek, Jackson, Pine Grove)       1,519        174           12            0          6          0         59        0         101


                                        4.02    Central County (parts of Jackson, Rancheria, Pine Grove)          1,438        227           0             0          0          18        20        20        110


                                           5    South County (parts of Jackson, Pine Acres)                       1,043        149           0             0          0          0         28        7         88


                                                                                      Amador County              10,278       1,722          39            8         57          29       463        86        704
                                                                                                         (1)
                                                                   Percent of Countywide Workers                  85.7%       14.4%         0.3%          0.1%      0.5%        0.2%      3.9%      0.7%      5.9%


                                                                                   State of California         10,432,462 2,113,313       736,037        41,022    36,262      120,567   414,581   395,582   557,036

                                                                      Percent of Statewide Workers                83.2%       16.8%         5.9%          0.3%      0.3%        1.0%      3.3%      3.2%      4.4%

                                       Note 1: The percentages only account for those persons who worked outside the home.


                                       Source: U.S. Census Bureau and LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.




Transit Development Plan
          Amador County
     TABLE 6: Amador County Commuter Flow
     Amador Residents Commuting To…                             Amador Employees Commuting From…

     County of Workplace         Number       Percent           County of Residence        Number         Percent


     Amador                          9,843         73.6%        Amador                            9,843        77.4%

     Sacramento                      1,375         10.3%        Calaveras                         1,211         9.5%

     San Joaquin                       585          4.4%        Sacramento                          580         4.6%

     Calaveras                         331          2.5%        El Dorado                           369         2.9%

     El Dorado                         257          1.9%        San Joaquin                         306         2.4%

     Santa Clara                       150          1.1%        Other CA Counties 2                 131         1.0%

     Other CA Counties1                135          1.0%        Tuolumne                             93         0.7%

     Alameda                           114          0.9%        Stanislaus                           68         0.5%

     Yolo                              113          0.8%        Placer                               40         0.3%

     Out of State                      107          0.8%        Los Angeles                          32         0.3%

     San Francisco                       79         0.6%        Butte                                23         0.2%

     Placer                              78         0.6%        Solano                               21         0.2%

     Alpine                              60         0.4%        San Bernardino                       19         0.1%

     San Mateo                           42         0.3%        Nevada                               12         0.1%

     Contra Costa                        37         0.3%        Madera                                4         0.0%

     Mariposa                            29         0.2%                          Total          12,717        100%

     Nevada                              22         0.2%

     Fresno                              21         0.2%

                       Total       13,378          100%


     Note 1: Includes 17 counties with less than 20 residents who commuted from Amador County.
     Note 2: Includes 12 counties with less than 20 employees who commuted to Amador County.


     Source: US Census Transportation Package, 2000



Amador County                                                                           LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                           Page 17
                          FIGURE 7: Counties to which Amador County Residents Commute




                                                                                       Calaveras
                                                                                         2.5%

                                                                                          El Dorado
                                                                                             1.9%


                          Amador
                           73.6%


                                                                                                Sacramento
                                                                                                  10.3%




                                                                                          San Joaquin
                                                                                             4.4%




                                                                            Others
                                                                            7.4%




                 FIGURE 8: Counties from which Amador County Employees Commute




                              Amador
                               77.2%



                                                                                          Calaveras
                                                                                            9.5%




                                                                                        El Dorado
                                                                                           2.9%



                                                                                   Sacramento
                                                                                      4.5%


                                                                                  San Joaquin
                                                                                     2.4%
                                                                         Others
                                                                         3.5%




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                         Amador County
Page 18                                                                            Transit Development Plan
Amador County
Transit Development Plan
                                       TABLE 7 : Amador County 2000 School Enrollment by Census Tract


                                                                                                                Total                                 Elementary (1- Elementary   High School             Total Population
                                       Census Tract Number & Area Description                                 Population   Preschool   Kindergarten        4)           (5-8)        (9-12)     College      In School     Not in School

                                           1    High Country (Kirkwood, Pioneer)                                5,781         34           75             319          322           251          76          1,077           4,704
                                           2    North County (Plymouth, Amador City)                            4,362         37           43             198          259           272         117           926            3,436
                                        3.01    Northwest County (Part of Ione, to Sac. Co. line)               5,628         41           17             95            94           985         302           1,534          4,093
                                        3.02    Southwest County (Parts of Ione & Sutter Creek)                 6,820         77           134            442          455           637         282          2,027           4,793
                                        4.01    Central County (parts of Sutter Creek, Jackson, Pine Grove)     4,366         72           28             203          250           286         123           962            3,404
                                        4.02    Central County (parts of Jackson, Rancheria, Pine Grove)        4,542         77           12             230          251           297          78           945            3,597
                                           5    South County (parts of Jackson, Pine Acres)                     2,811         50           22             120          179           182          85           638            2,173
                                                                                        Amador County          34,310        388          331            1,607        1,810         2,910       1,063         8,109          26,200

                                       Source: U.S. Census Bureau.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                           Page 19
total, the County has approved or is currently reviewing applications that would result in over 6,500 new
residential housing units1. The following is a summary of the more prominent and large-scale
development projects that are in review or have been recently approved:

      Wicklow Subdivision: This project is situated on approximately 201 acres in the Martell area of the
      County, and would include nearly 750 new single- and multi-family residential units, as well as 26
      acres of commercial space. The project is currently in the EIR stage.

      Golden Vale: The Golden Vale subdivision includes 607 single- and multi-family residential units
      and commercial space on 383 acres in Martell. This project is currently in the review stage in the
      Planning Department.

      Creekside at Jackson: Located in Jackson along the South Jackson SR 49 corridor, this project
      proposes 400 residential units on 277 acres. The project is currently being reviewed by the County’s
      Planning Department.

      Jackson Hills: This proposal located along the South Jackson SR 49 corridor in Jackson includes 540
      new residential units on 516 acres. It is estimated that the project would produce nearly 1,300 new
      residents, should the project be built per the current proposal. The project has been given tentative
      approval by the City.

      Zinfandel: The Zinfandel proposal, located in Plymouth along the SR 49/SR 16 corridor, includes
      355 residential units on 150 acres. This project is currently in the EIR stage.

      Gold Rush: The largest of the currently proposed or approved projects, this proposal would include
      1,334 new residential units on 945 acres, 300 timeshare units at the Golf Course and a 60-room hotel,
      along the Ridge and SR 88 corridor in the Sutter Creek/Sutter Hill area. The golf course and
      condominium portions of the proposal have been approved, and the single-family homes and hotel
      portions are currently under review.

      Sierra West Business Park: This proposal, located in Martell, was approved by the County and
      includes over 70 acres of commercial development.

      Martell Business Park: Located in Martell, the Martell Business Park includes approximately 374
      acres of commercial land uses. This project has been approved by Amador County.

      Gold Country Plaza at Sutter Hill: This commercial project located in Sutter Hill at the SR 49 and SR
      104 intersection proposes 139,430 square feet of commercial space on 11.6 acres. The project has
      been approved.

In addition to the above projects, other residential proposals have been submitted to or approved by the
County in all areas, ranging from 5 units to over 300 units. The Kirkwood Ski area is also being
expanded, with approximately 113 residential condos, townhouses and building lots approved. Further, a
number of the projects proposed in the County are designated as “mixed-use” developments where, in
addition to residential uses, commercial/retail land uses are also incorporated. An example is the Gold
Village project near Ione, which includes 49 single-family lots, 101 multi-family units, 29,400 square feet
of retail and 2,100 square feet of office space.



1
    Based on information provided on Amador County’s website

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                            Amador County
Page 20                                                                               Transit Development Plan
Amador County Planning Department maintains an inventory of approved or planned major residential
projects throughout the County, which provides a useful picture of the scope and location of new
development currently “in the works.” As shown in Table 8, as of 2007 there were developments either
approved or in the planning process that would add approximately 6,494 new dwelling units
(approximately a 50 percent increase over the current Countywide total housing stock). By community,
the largest proportion (27 percent, or 1,737 units) are planned in the Sutter Creek area, followed closely
by 22 percent (1,407 units) in the Jackson area, and 21 percent (1,357 units) in the Martell area.
Considered by roadway corridor, the highest proportion of development is located along the SR 88
Upcountry Corridor (31 percent, or 2,023 units).

Amador County’s General Plan is currently in the process of being updated, which would include changes
to the existing land use plan. The new Plan, applicable through 2030, proposes modifications to the land
use classification system due to current development trends, changes in state land use law, and
community interests. Modifications include new allowable densities and intensities, new special planning
area designations, removal of outdated classifications, and expansion of land use classification
boundaries.

As the General Plan is in the development stage and has not yet been approved, three alternatives discuss
the concentration of development and growth in various existing communities of the County. Alternative
“A” assumes that the existing trends in growth will continue, with residential development occurring in
existing Residential-Rural and Agricultural-Transition areas outside of defined communities and in
Residential-Low Density and Residential-Medium Density within or adjacent to rural communities.
Alternative “B” introduces small service centers and encourages focused growth in existing communities
and a potential new community in the western portion of the County. Alternative “C” introduces a larger
number of service centers and broader agricultural designations that would focus more development into
existing communities and add a possible new community in Western Amador County.

It should be noted that there is currently a high degree of uncertainty regarding long-range development
potential, particularly in the more rural portions of the County. A good example is the “Rancho Arroyo
Seco” proposal, which could potentially result in the development of up to 2,200 acres of land west of
Ione. This is the possible “new community” mentioned above in General Plan Alternatives B and C. It
could include anywhere from 7,000 to 17,000 homes, as well as several hundred thousand square feet of
commercial uses. In addition, the two possible Indian Gaming projects (which are impacted by
considerations beyond local land use controls) also have a high degree of uncertainty as to the scale and
timing of ultimate development.

Demographic Forecasts

The California Department of Finance has projected the population for Amador County in ten-year
increments, as presented in Table 9. The Countywide population growth rate is expected to remain
relatively steady through 2020, averaging approximately 1.7 percent growth per year. According to the
Department of Finance, the population in Amador County will increase by approximately 42.5 percent by
the year 2030 from 2007 levels.

Table 9 also presents population projections by age. These forecasts are useful in considering future
trends in demand for transit services:

    Countywide total population is forecast to increase by 19,431 or 55 percent between 2000 and 2030.

    Almost half (47 percent) of this future growth in population by 2030 will consist of elderly residents
    (defined by age 60 and above), which are forecast to increase by a full 9,083.

Amador County                                                                LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                Page 21
Page 22
                                       TABLE 8: Summary of Planned and Approved Large Residential Development in Amador County
                                                               Number of Dwelling Units




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                                                                                                  Roadway Corridor
                                                                                       French    NY                                  Gopher                                Total by
                                                                  Ridge/88   49         Bar     Ranch   N. Main     88      49/16     Flat    88   104   124/104   Other    Area      % of Total

                                           Buckhorn                 74        0           0       0       0         0         0        0      0     0      0        0        74          1%

                                           Mace Meadows             59        0           0       0       0         0         0        0      0     0      0        0        59          1%
                                       C   Pioneer                  202       0           0       0       0         0         0        0      0     0      0        0        202         3%
                                       o
                                       m   Pine Grove               354       0           0       0       0         0         0        0      0     0      0        0        354         5%
                                       m   Jackson                   0       167       1,011     200      29        0         0        0      0     0      0        0       1,407       22%
                                       u
                                       n   Martell                   0        0           0       0       0       1,357       0        0      0     0      0        0       1,357       21%
                                       i
                                           Plymouth                  0        0           0       0       0         0        500       0      0     0      0        0        500         8%
                                       t
                                       y   Sutter Creek            1,334     50           0       0       0         0         0       230     0     0      0       123      1,737       27%

                                           Buena Vista               0        0           0       0       0         0         0        0      90    0      0        0        90          1%

                                           Ione                      0        0           0       0       0         0         0        0      0    386    328       0        714        11%

                                           Total by Corridor       2,023     217       1,011     200      29      1,357      500      230     90   386    328      123      6,494       100%

                                           % of Total               31%      3%        16%       3%      0%        21%       8%       4%      1%   6%      5%       2%      100%
                                           Source: Amador County Planning Department




Transit Development Plan
          Amador County
TABLE 9: Amador County Population Forecast
                                                                                      Change 2000 % Change
                                          2000       2010       2020       2030          - 2030   2000 - 2030
Total Population                          35,357     40,337     47,593     54,788          19,431            55%

Subtotal by Age
  Children (0 to 9 yrs)                    3,308      3,082      4,309      4,477          1,169             35%
  Youth (10 to 19 yrs)                     4,855      4,765      4,818      6,168          1,313             27%
  Adult (20 to 64 yrs)                    20,780     24,017     26,357     28,646          7,866             38%
  Younger Senior (65 to 74 yrs)            3,480      4,746      6,922      7,780          4,300             124%
  Older Senior (75+ yrs)                   2,934      3,727      5,187      7,717          4,783             163%

Change by Decade
  Total Population                          --       4,980      7,256      7,195
  Children (0 to 9 yrs)                     --       -226       1,227       168
  Youth (10 to 19 yrs)                      --        -90        53        1,350
  Adult (20 to 64 yrs)                      --       3,237      2,340      2,289
  Younger Senior (65 to 74 yrs)             --       1,266      2,176       858
  Older Senior (75+ yrs)                    --        793       1,460      2,530

Percent of Total
  Children (0 to 9yrs)                      9%         8%         9%         8%
  Youth (10 to 19yrs)                      14%        12%        10%        11%
  Adult (20 to 65 yrs)                     59%        60%        55%        52%
  Younger Senior (65 to 74 yrs)            10%        12%        15%        14%
  Older Senior (75+ yrs)                    8%         9%        11%        14%

Source: California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit 2007


    Within this elderly population increase, more than half (52 percent) will consist of older seniors age
    75 and above that are more likely to need “door to door” transportation services.

Following the aging of the Baby Boom generation, the greatest increase in younger seniors will occur
between 2010 and 2020, followed by the greatest increase in older seniors between 2020 and 2030.

    The number of children (less than 10 years of age) and youth (age 10 to 19) is actually forecast to
    drop slightly between 2000 and 2010, followed by a consistent increase. Any appreciable increase in
    youth population (a group with a relatively high demand for transit service) does not occur until after
    2020.

Overall, these forecasts indicate substantial shifts in the demand for public transportation services over
the long term, particularly towards increasing needs for seniors.

Long-Range Population and Land Use Forecasts by District

In addition to the inventory of land use plans currently approved or proposed as presented in Table 8,
above, another source of land use forecasts that focuses on long-range conditions is provided in the
Amador County Regional Transportation Plan Update (ACTC, 2004). Table 10 presents a summary of
key land use data by general community area (not specifically for the areas of incorporation), for both
2000 and 2004 (the years evaluated in the TransCAD traffic model currently available). These forecasts
indicate the following:

    Total housing units will increase by 10,576 (or 81 percent over 2000 totals), of which 8,875 are single
    family units and 1,701 are multifamily units.

Amador County                                                                       LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                       Page 23
TABLE 10: Amador County Transportation Model Demographic Data
                                                                                          Commercial/Institutional Development (Thousands of
                                                            Residential Dwelling Units                 Square Feet Floor Area)
                                                           Single     Multi-                                  Light
District                                                   Family    Family       Total   Retail Office Industrial Institutional     Total


2000
Kirkwood                           Kirkwood                 312         0         312       36       20       0           4           60
Cooks Station to Iron Mountain     Cooks Stn to Iron Mtn    124        10         134       20       6        0           0           26
Central: Pine Grove to Buckhorn    Central                 4,449       448       4,897     428      69       80          86          663
Jackson                            Jackson                 1,665       629       2,294     963      265      35          231        1,494
Martell                            Martell                  491        279        770      871      36       136         26         1,069
Ione                               Ione                    1,109       348       1,457     312      13       74           35         434
Camanche                           Camanche                 333        198        531      46        6       34           1          87
Sutter Creek                       Sutter Creek             794        144        938      406       1       23          22          452
Amador City/Drytown                Amador City/Drytown      228        19         247       86       0        0           1           87
Plymouth                           Plymouth                 262        197        459      179      10        4           8          201
Fiddletown/Shenandoah              Fiddletown/Shenandoah    720        71         791      128       6        3           2          139
Northwest County                   Northwest County         196        42         238       24       2       52           4           82
Total                              Total                   10,683     2,385      13,068   3,230     466      441         472        4,609

2025
Kirkwood                           Kirkwood                 372        387        759       36      20        0           4           60
Cooks Station to Iron Mountain     Cooks Stn to Iron Mtn    124        42         166       20       6        0           0           26
Central: Pine Grove to Buckhorn    Central                 6,563       448       7,011     585      89       131         104         909
Jackson                            Jackson                 2,854       957       3,811    1,282     335      172         237        2,026
Martell                            Martell                 2,522       680       3,202    1,416     56       922         284        2,678
Ione                               Ione                    2,343       348       2,691     424      53       154         70          701
Camanche                           Camanche                 458        498        956      68        6       34           1          109
Sutter Creek                       Sutter Creek            1,130       234       1,364     626      41       29           44         740
Amador City/Drytown                Amador City/Drytown      461        39         500      152      32       52           9          245
Plymouth                           Plymouth                 348        340        688      253      50       54          12          369
Fiddletown/Shenandoah              Fiddletown/Shenandoah    946        71        1,017     132       6        3           2          143
Northwest County                   Northwest County         239        42         281       24       2       63           4           93
Total                                                      19,558     4,086      23,644   5,090     728     1,614        823        8,255

Change from 2000 to 2025
Kirkwood                                                    60         387        447       0        0        0           0           0
Cooks Station to Iron Mountain                               0         32          32       0        0        0           0           0
Central: Pine Grove to Buckhorn                            2,114        0        2,114     157      20       51          18          246
Jackson                                                    1,189       328       1,517     319      70       137          6          532
Martell                                                    2,031       401       2,432     545      20       786         258        1,609
Ione                                                       1,234        0        1,234     112      40       80           35         267
Camanche                                                    125        300        425      22        0        0           0          22
Sutter Creek                                                336        90         426      220      40        6           22         288
Amador City/Drytown                                         233        20         253      66       32       52           8          158
Plymouth                                                    86         143        229      74       40       50           4          168
Fiddletown/Shenandoah                                       226         0         226       4        0        0           0           4
Northwest County                                            43          0          43       0        0       11           0          11
Total                                                      8,875      1,701      10,576   1,860     262     1,173        351        3,646

Percent Change from 2000 to 2025
Kirkwood                                                   19%          --       143%      0%      0%          --        0%          0%
Cooks Station to Iron Mountain                              0%        320%       24%       0%      0%          --         --         0%
Central: Pine Grove to Buckhorn                            48%         0%        43%       37%     29%       64%        21%         37%
Jackson                                                    71%        52%        66%       33%     26%      391%         3%         36%
Martell                                                    414%       144%       316%      63%     56%      578%        992%        151%
Ione                                                       111%        0%        85%       36%    308%       108%       100%         62%
Camanche                                                   38%        152%       80%       48%     0%         0%         0%         25%
Sutter Creek                                               42%        63%        45%       54%    4000%      26%        100%        64%
Amador City/Drytown                                        102%       105%       102%      77%      --         --       800%        182%
Plymouth                                                   33%        73%        50%       41%    400%      1250%       50%         84%
Fiddletown/Shenandoah                                      31%         0%        29%       3%      0%         0%         0%          3%
Northwest County                                           22%         0%        18%       0%      0%        21%         0%         13%
Total                                                      83%        71%        81%       58%     56%      266%        74%         79%
SOURCE: Amador County TransCAD Transportation Model




   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                                               Amador County
   Page 24                                                                                                  Transit Development Plan
    Of all residential growth, 23 percent is forecast to occur in the Martell area, 20 percent in the
    upcountry area between Pine Grove and Buckhorn, 14 percent in Jackson, and 12 percent in Ione.
    Development in the entire remainder of the County is forecast to only equal 18 percent of the total.

    As multifamily dwelling unit residents tend to make greater use of public transit services, it is also
    worthwhile to review the planned location of these housing units. Areas with an increase of 100 or
    more multifamily housing units consist of Martell (401), Kirkwood (387), Jackson (328), Camanche
    (300), and Plymouth (143).

    As a whole, commercial and institutional development (as measured in floor area) is forecast to
    increase by 3,646,000 square feet, or 79 percent over 2000 levels. This includes 1,860,000 square feet
    of retail development, 262,000 square feet of office development, 1,173,000 square feet of light
    industrial development, and 351,000 square feet of institutional uses (excluding schools or prisons).

    By far, the Martell area is expected to be the location of the largest proportion of future
    commercial/institutional development, equaling 44 percent of the Countywide total. This equals a 151
    percent increase over 2000 levels, and includes 67 percent of Countywide light industrial growth and
    29 percent of retail growth. Jackson is forecast to be the location of 15 percent of all Countywide
    commercial/industrial growth, including 27 percent of office growth.

It should be noted that there are additional developments that have been proposed or approved in the
County and various communities. The above analysis examines the very large scale projects that have
been proposed, as these have substantial impact on land use based in increased number of residential
units. As discussed in Chapter 2, there are many more projects that have been reviewed by the County,
ranging from 5 residential units to over 300 units, as well as mixed-used developments and commercial
developments.

Traffic Forecasts

Given that a preponderance of travel (particularly for longer trips) in Amador County are via private
vehicles, the TransCAD traffic model is also a very good source of forecasts for overall travel demand
both between areas of Amador County as well as external to the County. Table 11 presents a summary of
2004 and 2025 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume estimates on major
 roadways, for both average annual conditions as well as peak month conditions. Focusing on the average
annual figures (as these better reflect overall trends in travel), a review of this table indicates the
following:

    The greatest increase in absolute traffic activity is forecast to occur on SR 49/88 between Jackson and
    Martell, where ADT volumes are forecast to increase by 9,100 total vehicles per day, followed
    closely by SR 49 north of Jackson Gate (and south of Ridge Road) as well as SR 88 between Martell
    and Ione where volumes are forecast to increase 8,700 vehicles per day.

    On a percentage basis, the greatest increases are forecast on SR 104 just northwest of Ione, where
    volumes are forecast to increase from 2,700 to 4,300, or 103 percent and on SR 104 southeast of Ione
    where volumes increase from 4,100 to 8,100, or 98 percent. Other roadways with relatively high
    proportionate increases include SR 88 east of Hams Station and SR 49 at the El Dorado County line,
    both of which are forecast to increase by 96 percent. SR 88 between Ione and Martell is also forecast
    to increase by 85 percent.




Amador County                                                               LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                               Page 25
                                       TABLE 11: Existing and Forecast Daily Traffic Volumes on Key Roadways in Amador County




Page 26
                                                                                                   Average Annual Daily Traffic Volume   Average Peak Month Daily Traffic Volume
                                       Roadway                 Location                           2004      2025     Change % Change      2004      2025     Change % Change
                                       SR 16                   Sacramento County Line            5,000        7,990      2,990    60%    5,300     8,480      3,180      60%
                                       SR 16                   West of SR 124                    7,300        10,600     3,300    45%    7,500     11,000     3,500      47%
                                       SR 26                   South of SR 88                    2,250         4,100     1,850    82%    2,450      4,500     2,050      84%
                                       SR 49                   Calaveras County Line              6,700       11,700     5,000    75%     7,200    12,600     5,400      75%
                                       SR 49                   Jackson South of SR 88            18,700       25,700     7,000    37%    19,800    27,200     7,400      37%




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                       SR 49/88                Between Martell and Jackson       17,400       26,500     9,100    52%    19,600    29,800    10,200      52%
                                       SR 49                   Martell North of Jackson Gate     14,400       23,100     8,700    60%    15,800    25,300     9,500      60%
                                       SR 49                   North of Sutter Creek Bypass      10,100       14,300     4,200    42%    10,600    14,800     4,200      40%
                                       SR 49                   South of Plymouth                  7,900       12,300     4,400    56%     8,600    13,500     4,900      57%
                                       SR 49                   El Dorado County Line             2,300        4,500      2,200    96%     2,650     5,100     2,450      92%
                                       SR 88                   San Joaquin County Line            7,100       11,700     4,600    65%     8,900    14,100     5,200      58%
                                       SR 88                   Between Ione and Martell          10,200       18,900     8,700    85%    15,000    26,900    11,900      79%
                                       SR 88                   Just East of Jackson               8,300       15,800     7,500    90%     9,300    17,100     7,800      84%
                                       SR 88                   Pine Grove                        13,500       18,900     5,400    40%    15,500    21,700     6,200      40%
                                       SR 88                   Mace Meadows                       5,100        7,400     2,300    45%     6,300     9,100     2,800      44%
                                       SR 88                   East of Hams Station               2,400        4,700     2,300    96%     3,200     6,200     3,000      94%
                                       SR 104                  Between SR 88 and Ione            4,100         8,100     4,000     98%   4,350      8,600     4,250      98%
                                       SR 104                  Northwest of Ione                 5,900        12,000     6,100    103%   6,600     13,400     6,800     103%
                                       SR 104                  Sacramento County Line            1,700        2,400       700     41%    1,900     2,700       800       42%
                                       SR 124                  Between SR 88 and Ione            2,850         4,400     1,550    54%    3,250      5,000     1,750      54%
                                       SR 124                  Northeast of Ione                 2,700         4,300     1,600    59%    3,100      4,900     1,800      58%
                                       SR 124                  South of SR 16                    1,800         3,000     1,200    67%    2,100      3,500     1,400      67%
                                       Dalton Road             Between SR 88 and NY Ranch Rd       –           5,800     5,800     –       –          –         –         –
                                       Latrobe Road            El Dorado County Line             2,420         3,800     1,380    57%      –          –         –         –
                                       New York Ranch Rd       Northeast of Jackson              2,380         2,700      320     13%      –          –         –         –
                                       New York Ranch Rd       South of Ridge Rd                 5,010         8,200     3,190    64%      –          –         –         –
                                       Ridge Road              East of SR 49                     11,000       17,000     6,000    55%      –          –         –         –
                                       Ridge Road              West of SR 88                      6,400       10,000     3,600    56%      –          –         –         –
                                       Sum of All Count Locations                               184,910       299,890   114,980   62%
                                       Source: 2004 Amador County Regional Transportation Plan Update, ACTC




Transit Development Plan
          Amador County
    Traffic volumes on SR 89 over the Amador/Calaveras County line are forecast to increase by 5,000
    vehicles per day or 75 percent, inferring a corresponding increase in demand for transit services
    between the two counties.

    As a basis for evaluating future need for commuter services to the Central Valley, it is worthwhile to
    review traffic volume forecasts crossing Amador County’s western boundary. The greatest growth is
    forecast on SR 88 into San Joaquin County (4,600 additional ADT), compared with 2,990 additional
    ADT into Sacramento County via SR 16 and 700 additional ADT into San Joaquin County via SR
    104. This indicates a relatively high growth in demand for commuter transit services into San Joaquin
    County (Stockton) versus Sacramento County.

    Traffic volumes on Latrobe Road are only forecast to increase from 2,420 to 3,800 over the 21-year
    period, indicating relatively low increase in demand for commuter services to El Dorado Hills
    employers.

Assuming that the locations identified in Table 11 are representative of the Countywide roadway network
as a whole, the total traffic volumes throughout the County are forecast to increase by 62 percent by 2025.

TRANSIT AND TRANSPORTATION RELATED GOALS
Existing transit and transit-related policy statements are provided in two documents, as discussed below

Amador County Regional Transportation Plan Update

The Amador County Regional Transportation Plan Update (ACTC, 2004) presents the following “Public
Transit” goals, policies and objectives.

2A Goals

    Goal 2A(1): Provide effective, economically feasible safe and efficient public transportation in
    Amador County with emphasis on service to transportation disadvantaged.

2B Policies

    Policy 2B(1): The ACTC shall support public transit to a maximum that is determined to be
    “reasonable to meet” according to maintained “reasonable to meet” criteria and the TDA. (The ACTC
    shall review the “reasonableness criteria” annually.)

    Policy 2B(2): The ACTC shall require that the Amador Regional Transit System (ARTS) conform to
    those recommendations made in Triennial Performance Audits and in Transit Development Plan(s) to
    be updated every five years.

    Policy 2B(3): The ACTC shall support interregional transportation service to the Sacramento area so
    long as state, federal, or other non-LTF are available to maintain adopted “reasonable to meet”
    criteria.

    Policy 2B(4): The ACTC shall support other inter-County services (Stockton, Calaveras) provided
    that supplemental funding is made available so the service fits adopted “reasonable to meet” criteria.




Amador County                                                               LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                               Page 27
    Policy 2B(5): The ACTC shall require that claimants for public transportation funds submit an annual
    report, not later than September 30 of each year, covering the information in Section 99247 of the
    Public Utilities Code. This report shall include current year to date and all prior year performance
    data.

    Policy 2B(6): Amador County shall encourage and support the use of public transportation grants
    from state and federal programs to the maximum extent possible.

    Policy 2B(7): The Kirkwood Ski area and other recreation areas to be developed or expanded should
    be required to provide transit services at development’s expense according to the Four County
    Recreational Transit Demand and Feasibility Study, J. Kaplan & Associates (1988), to relieve
    congestion of the existing circulation system.

    Policy 2B(8): The ACTC shall encourage and support both public and provide carpool/vanpool
    programs.

    Policy 2B(9): The ACTC shall promote coordination and consolidation of social service
    transportation services operating within Amador County.

    Policy 2B(10): The ACTC shall support and promote Elderly and Handicapped accessibility in public
    transportation to the maximum extent practicable.

    Policy 2B(11): All Amador County planning agencies should provide ARTS with an opportunity to
    review and comment on any major development project which may have an impact on transit
    services. ARTS shall provide input on major development projects to identify locations of bus stops,
    park-and-ride lots, wheelchair, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and other facilities where necessary.

    Policy 2B(12): The ACTC’s policy regarding State Transit Assistance (STA) funds is that they shall
    be held as a reserve to loan capital for grant-funded transit facilities that are repaid by grant
    reimbursements and for other unforeseen transit-related expenses.

2C Objectives

    Objective 2C(1): By February 1, preceding the applicable fiscal year, the ACTC shall conduct a
    public hearing and make a determination in the public record as to whether there are unmet public
    transportation needs that can reasonably be met through expansion of existing transportation systems
    or by establishing new systems in the region.

    Objective 2C(2): ARTS shall continue the contract with Valley Mountain Regional Center for
    services to Amcal Clients on an annual basis.

    Objective 2C(3): ARTS capital improvement program (see Chapter VII, Action Element) should be
    carried out.

    Objective 2C(4): The ARTS Transportation Development Pan should be updated and include
    provisions for a long-term 25-year outlook. (Fulfillment of this objective was recently facilitated by
    state approval of an FTA Section 5313b Transportation Planning grant.)

    Objective 2C(5): Maintain and expand inter-County transit service as growth in demand occurs.



LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                             Amador County
Page 28                                                                                Transit Development Plan
Amador County General Plan Update Working Documents

In addition, Amador County is currently updating the General Plan. Working with the General Plan
Advisory Committee (GPAC), staff and consultants have developed a series of draft goals and policies.
The following draft goals and policies relate to public transit:

    Goal CM-3: Provide transportation alternatives to the automobile.

    Policy CM-3.6: Coordinate with ARTS and other agencies to improve the availability of public transit
    connecting residents to services.

    Policy CM-3.7: Continue to provide public transportation from Amador County to regional job and
    activity centers located outside the County.

    Policy CM-3.8: Encourage development of facilities which support carpooling and public
    transportation within the County.




Amador County                                                            LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                            Page 29
                                       This page left intentionally blank.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                   Amador County
Page 30                                                                      Transit Development Plan
                                                                                                 Chapter 3
                                                                  Transportation Services
Passenger transportation services in Amador County are provided by a variety of public, non-profit, and
private services. This chapter first presents a review of existing Amador Regional Transit System
conditions, followed by a discussion of other providers.

AMADOR REGIONAL TRANSIT SYSTEM
Background

Amador Regional Transit System (ARTS) has been providing transit services in Amador County since
1976 and operates under direction of the Amador County Transportation Commission (ACTC). ARTS
was formed as a Joint Powers Agency (JPA) between Amador County and its five incorporated cities
(Jackson, Sutter Creek, Ione, Plymouth, and Amador County).

In recent years, a number of studies have been completed regarding ARTS and Amador transit services in
general , including the following:

    Amador County Transit Development Plan Fiscal Years 2003/04 to 2007/08, 2003 by LSC
    Transportation Consultants, Inc. This document is a five year plan for system operations from Fiscal
    Years (FY) 2003 through 2008. The current document being developed for FY 2007 through 2013
    will provide updated analysis and recommendations for the ARTS services.

    Amador County Social Service Transportation Inventory and Action Plan, 2003, by LSC
    Transportation Consultants, Inc. This document serves as a follow up to the Amador County
    Transportation Commission FY 1996/97 Social Service Implementation Plan. It provides an updated
    inventory of providers and services provided in Amador County, the 2003 social service
    transportation needs assessment, and updated recommendations concerning coordination actions and
    services.

    Amador County Social Service Transportation Implementation Plan Update, 1998, by
    Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates. This document provides an overview of both the social
    service transportation services in Amador County and efforts to improve coordination between those
    services.

    Triennial Performance Audit of Amador Regional Transit System FY 2003/04 through FY 2005/06,
    2007 by Majic Consulting Group. This document presents the required performance audits of ARTS
    to determine if operations and record keeping are within mandated standards. Recommendations
    made were in regards to 1) revisions to the Preventative Maintenance Inspection Program, 2)
    separation of charter fares, expenses and ridership counts, 3) exclusion of tax revenues received for
    Route X, 4) development and implementation of an effective marking plan, 5) updating short and
    long range transit plans, 6) consolidation of personnel policies, and 7) simplification of the input and
    analysis of spreadsheets.

    Prioritization of Bus Stop Facilities for Amador Regional Transit System: Capital Improvement
    Program, 2001 by Dokken Engineering. This presents a review and evaluation of the 54 bus stop
    facilities in Amador County, with recommendations for signage, shelters, benches and access
    improvements.


Amador County                                                                LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                Page 31
      Transit Marketing Plan, 1999 by Crain & Associates, Inc. This marketing plan identifies market
      segments for transit and develop targeted, cost-effective marketing strategies. Much of the elements
      of this plan (including improved rider marketing materials, improved bus image, and advertising)
      have been accomplished.

      Inter-County Transit Study Feasibility Study, 1997 by Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates. This
      document outlines a plan for inter-County transit services between Amador County and downtown
      Sacramento. It was used as the primary justification for a series of successful applications for FTA
      Section 5311(f) grants.

Existing Amador Regional Transit System Services

Public transportation within Amador County is provided by ARTS through a general public deviated
fixed route service. The bus service currently operates seven routes Monday through Friday between the
hours of 5:40 AM and 7:15 PM, with the exception of County holidays. No services are provided on
weekends. Some services are only operated on school days. ARTS serves the routes presented in Figure 9,
and up to half a mile from the designated routes.2 Descriptions of the routes are presented below.

Deviated Fixed Route Services

As mentioned above, ARTS operates a deviated fixed route system. Along the published route,
passengers may wait at a designated stop, or “flag down” the bus anywhere along the route where a stop
can be safely made. While the bus stop locations and times are published on the schedule, on request
drivers may deviate up to one-half mile from the stated route to pick up passengers. Locations for off-
route service must be approved in advance, must be located along a state or County roadway that is
accessible by a transit vehicle. Once a deviation stop is approved, passengers can make a request for
service up to one hour in advance of the scheduled service to their area. The passenger is told to be ready
at least 5 minutes ahead of the time given by the dispatcher, with a caution that the bus may be as much as
5-10 minutes late. If the passenger is not at the decided location when the bus arrives, the driver cannot
return to pick the passenger up. Passengers are asked to call and cancel any request if there is a change of
plans. Subject to time constraints, off-route deviations may not always be available. This service strategy
is a cost-effective and responsive means of serving a relatively rural area, without the requirements of
parallel fixed route and demand-response services. The following routes are operated.

      Route C: Sutter Hill/Ione/Camanche – This line is operated under contract with Valley Mountain
      Regional Center (VMRC), and as a result, operates intermittently. ARTS recommends that passengers
      call to confirm daily service status. The route, which takes approximately 80 minutes to complete,
      typically begins in Sutter Hill at 7:40 AM (Run C1) and travels through Ione to Camanche. The bus is
      “on call” for stops at the schools in Ione and at Buena Vista. The bus returns to The Arc in Sutter Hill
      at 9:00 AM. The afternoon run (C2) begins at The Arc at 3:00 P.M., arriving in Ione at 3:45 P.M.
      Again, the bus serves the Ione schools and Buena Vista if requested. The bus arrives at Camanche
      Road at 3:50 P.M., returning to Sutter Hill by 4:20 P.M.

      Route I: Sutter Hill/Ione – Route I operates two morning and two afternoon round trips between
      Sutter Hill and Ione. The morning round trips take approximately 60 minutes, and the afternoon trips
      take approximately 90 minutes. Many bus stops are provided “on call,” including bus stops at the
      schools.



2
    This figure is based on the graphics provided on the ARTS Internet webpage.

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                              Amador County
Page 32                                                                                 Transit Development Plan
                                                                                                    FIGURE 9
                                                                                      Amador County Bus Routes




Amador County
                                                                                                             RIVER PINES
                                                                                                                                                                              COOKS STATION




Transit Development Plan
                                                           RANCHO MURIETA
                                          TO SACRAMENTO                                                                      FIDDLETOWN
                                                     X


                                                                                                  PLYMOUTH
                                                                                              P

                                                                                                                                                                MACE MEADOW
                                                                                                                                            VOLCANO
                                                                                                                                                                   M
                                                                                                          AMADOR COUNTY                               PIONEER
                                                                                                                                                  V
                                                                                                                                     PINE GROVE

                                                                                                     X
                                                                                                         AMADOR CITY
                                                                                                             SUTTER CREEK
                                                                                                             SUTTER HILL
                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                     C
                                                                                                                 P           M
                                                                                                                     V
                                                                               IONE                                      S
                                                                                          I
                                                                                                                         JACKSON


                                                                            BUENA VISTA

                                                                                                                                                                LEGEND
                                                                                                                                                       LAKES
                                                                                                                                                       COUNTY BOUNDARY
                                                                                C
                                                                                                                                                       URBAN AREA
                                                                            CAMANCHE
                                                                                                                                                       TOWN
                                                                                                                                                       BUS ROUTES
                                                                                                                     SCALE
                                                                                                                                                       M-JACKSON/MACE MEADOW
                                                                                                             0                   3
                                                                                                                                                       X-AMADOR SACRAMENTO EXPRESS
                                                                                                                                                       C-SUTTER HILL/IONE/CAMANCHE
                                                                                                                     IN MILES
                                                                                                                                                       V-SUTTER HILL/PINE GROVE/VOLCANO
                                                                                                                                                       S-JACKSON/SUTTER CREEK SHUTTLE
                                                                                                                                                       P-JACKSON/PLYMOUTH       ON CALL
                                                                                                                                                       I-SUTTER HILL/IONE
                                                TRANSPORTATION
                                                CONSULTANTS, INC.




                                       AMADORROUTES



LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                           Page 33
    Route M: Jackson/Mace Meadow – Route M operates six runs per day between Jackson and Mace
    Meadow, with each round trip taking approximately two hours. The first run of the day begins at 5:40
    AM in Sutter Hill and returns at 7:44 AM. The second run of the day is an express run that begins in
    Sutter Hill at 7:40 AM and returns by 9:31 AM, which gains approximately 15 minutes by not serving
    the “on call” stops between Amador Station and Deer Ridge Inn, and by traveling via Ridge Road
    instead of SR 88. Two routes, M1a and M5a are also operated in the afternoons on school days to
    accommodate the additional passengers.

    Route P: Jackson/Plymouth – This route is operated three times per day, beginning at 6:08 AM in
    Jackson, and at 11:10 AM and 3:45 P.M. in Sutter Hill, traveling to Plymouth. Each round trip takes
    approximately 90 minutes, depending on the run. Bus stops in Fiddletown and River Pines are
    provided “on call,” as is the bus stop at Amador High School.
    Route R: Rural – Shenandoah – This new route, initiated in February 2007, consists of two runs, R1
    and R2. The route runs from 7:47 AM to 12:30 P.M. Route R1 operates from Sutter Hill’s ARTS
    terminal to Plymouth and Ione via Shenandoah School Road before returning to Sutter Hill and is
    designed to pick up students at the Family Learning Center and deliver them home. Route R2
    essentially follows the Route P2 schedule, leaving at 11:00 AM from the ARTS terminal.

    Route S: Jackson/Sutter Creek Shuttle – Route S operates six full runs which take approximately an
    hour and forty minutes for the round trip between Sutter Hill and Jackson. Approximately five of the
    stops are “on call.” The regular runs begin at 9:20 AM and end at 5:35 P.M. This route connects with
    Calaveras Transit at Raley’s approximately every hour and 15 minutes, starting at 10:22 AM The
    previously operated S1x express route is no longer running.

    Route V: Sutter Hill/Pine Grove/Volcano – Similar to Route C, Route V is operated under contract
    with VMRC and thus operates intermittently. As with Route C, it is recommended that passengers
    call daily to confirm service status. The route takes approximately 90 minutes to complete. The
    morning run (V1) begins in Sutter Hill at 7:35 AM and arrives in Volcano at 8:10 AM, with stops in
    Jackson and Pine Grove in between. The afternoon run departs The Arc in Sutter Hill at 3:00 P.M.
    and returns by 4:30 P.M. to Sutter Hill.

    Route X: Amador/Sacramento EXPRESS – This route provides express service from Amador
    County to downtown Sacramento, with stops in Rancho Murieta, operating round-trip service three
    times per day. ARTS pays for the portion between Jackson and Rancho Murieta, and Sacramento
    County pays ARTS to operate the portion between Rancho Murieta and downtown Sacramento. The
    service departs Sutter Hill at 6:10 AM, arriving at 3rd & J Streets in downtown Sacramento at 7:55
    AM and returning to Sutter Hill by 9:30 AM. The midday service departs Sutter Hill at 9:55 AM,
    serves the light rail station at 65th and Folsom at 11:02 AM (last stop on the run), and returns to Sutter
    Hill by 12:09 P.M. The last run leaves Sutter Hill at 3:33 P.M., serves downtown Sacramento around
    5:00 P.M. and returning at 6:43 P.M.

As a whole, the route structure serves the large majority of developed areas throughout the County, as
well as providing the connecting service to Sacramento.

Other ARTS Transportation Services

ARTS operates other services for residents of Amador County, including Route K, which is coordinated
with school hours. While designed to serve kindergarten and elementary school children to and from
school, this service is open to the general public. Data for this route has been included in all ridership
analyses and tables.


LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                             Amador County
Page 34                                                                                Transit Development Plan
A Kirkwood Ski Shuttle was recently implemented on Saturdays, designed to transport Amador County
residents to the Kirkwood Ski Area at the far eastern end of the County, along SR 88. The shuttle tickets
cost $10 roundtrip and must be purchased by noon on the Friday before the trip. In order for the shuttle to
run, 12 tickets must have been purchased in advance or the trip will be cancelled.

ARTS also may provide VMRC contract services to individual passengers. For example, Route TM is an
ongoing, regularly scheduled contract service currently operated for one passenger, utilizing one of the
Chevrolet Suburban support vehicles in the ARTS fleet. The trip totals approximately 40 miles per day,
and the VMRC pays the ARTS $2.17 per mile.

ARTS Fare Media

Fares for ARTS are $1.00 for the general public and $0.50 for elderly or disabled on local routes. A
discounted book of 40 prepaid tickets can be purchased for $34.00, and seniors and disabled individuals
can purchase monthly passes for $17.00. Children five years old and younger travel for free on all ARTS
buses, when accompanied by a fare-paying adult. No “premium” fare is charged for a route deviation
beyond the base fare.

Fares for Route X (previously denoted at Route R), which travels between Sutter Hill and downtown
Sacramento, has a two-zone fare structure:

    Between Sutter Hill and Rancho Murieta: $1.25 for the general public and $0.75 for senior citizens
    and disabled persons.

    Rancho Murieta to downtown Sacramento: Sacramento Regional Transit fares – $2.00 for the general
    public and $1.00 for senior citizens and disabled persons.

For passengers traveling from Amador to Sacramento, the two fares are combined – for example, a
general fare passenger pays a total of $3.75 for a one-way fare. It should be noted that ARTS collects the
fares for the Rancho Murieta to Sacramento segment, and deducts these revenues from its monthly billing
to Sacramento County.

Some routes, such as Route V and Route C, are contracted through the Valley Mountain Regional Center
and have different fare structure. ARTS operates the buses for these routes and are reimbursed $2.17 per
mile by the VMRC.

Existing ARTS Revenues

ARTS revenues for FY 2006/07 are shown in Table 12. As shown, a total of approximately $1.5 million
was collected for ARTS revenues. For the fiscal year, the Local Transportation Fund was the primary
source of revenue, which totaled $931,020, or 62 percent of the total operating revenues. Other major
sources of ARTS revenue include passenger fares (11.6 percent), miscellaneous revenues (9.7 percent),
FTA Section 5311 grants (9 percent), and the Sacramento County charter services provided by ARTS (6.5
percent).




Amador County                                                               LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                               Page 35
                      TABLE 12: ARTS FY 2006-07 Revenues

                      Local Transportation Funds                         $   931,020
                      State Transit Assistance                           $       -
                      Valley Mountain Regional Center Contract           $    88,243
                      Passenger Fares (Cash & Prepaid)                   $    70,229
                      Monthly Pass Sales                                 $    11,781
                      Sacramento RT Transfer Agreement                   $     2,832
                      Sacramento County                                  $    84,680
                      Charter                                            $    12,326
                      Interest Income                                    $    13,273
                      FTA Section 5311 Operating Funds                   $   132,782
                      Miscellaneous Revenues                             $   144,927
                      TOTAL                                              $ 1,492,093

                      Source: ARTS and Caltrans


As Local Transportation Fund revenues comprise a large proportion of overall ARTS revenues, it is
useful to review the recent history of this funding source. These funds are generated by a quarter-cent
sales tax imposed statewide, and returned (minus administrative fees) by the State to the ACTC, which in
turn allocates funds to specific transportation purposes. As shown in Table 13 and Figure 10, overall LTF
revenues received by ACTC have been growing at roughly 4 percent per year, though a 2 percent drop is
forecast for FY 2008/09. Total LTF funds in FY 2008/09 are forecast to be slightly more than $1,200,000.
This table and figure also reflect a dramatic change in the allocation of LTF funds. In 2003/04, roughly
two-thirds of LTF revenues were allocated to the local jurisdictions within Amador County (largely for
use in roadway projects). However, by FY 2007/08 this proportion dropped to 3 percent, and is expected
to be eliminated completely in FY 2008/09. While the proportion of funds used by ACTC (for purposes
such as planning and administration) has increased over this time period, the amount of funds available to
ARTS has roughly tripled. With the elimination of LTF allocations to local jurisdictions, in the future any
new proposal that requires LTF funding (over any increase in total revenues) will require a funding
reduction in some existing ARTS, ACTC or bicycle/pedestrian program.

ARTS Expenses

ARTS operating expenses by line item for FY 2006/07 are presented in Table 14. Expenses for the fiscal
year totaled approximately $1.1 million. Of this, $487,470 (44 percent) was expended on operating
personnel, and another $349,939 (32 percent) can be attributed to vehicle costs. Lastly, administrative
costs totaled $262,339 (24 percent) of the total expenditures for the fiscal year.

ARTS Operating Cost Model

Table 14 also presents a “cost model” for ARTS operations. This methodology assigns each cost line item
to that service variable – vehicle-hour or vehicle-mile – that most closely determines the associated cost.
For instance, fuel costs are largely a function of vehicle-miles operated, while driver salaries are a
function of vehicle-hours operated. In addition, some annual operating costs (such as administrative




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                           Amador County
Page 36                                                                              Transit Development Plan
TABLE 13: Local Transportation Fund History
                                                                                               Percent of Total
                                                                              Local                       Local      Total Percent
Fiscal Year                Total         ARTS       ACTC       Ped/Bike   Jurisdictions   Transit    Jurisdictions     Change


2003-04              $     1,054,532   $ 307,112   $ 43,000    $ 18,140   $   686,280       29%          65%              --

2004-05              $     1,078,021   $ 600,000   $ 154,000   $ 16,720   $   307,301       56%          29%             2%

2005-06              $     1,141,479   $ 838,000   $ 144,000   $ 17,120   $   142,359       73%           12%            6%

2006-07              $     1,235,999   $ 998,620   $ 56,000    $ 20,380   $   160,999       81%           13%            8%

2007-08              $     1,255,000   $ 952,398   $ 245,000   $ 21,000   $     36,602      76%           3%             2%

2008-09 (Forecast)   $     1,230,000   $ 923,160   $ 288,000   $ 18,840   $        -        75%           0%             -2%

                                                                      Average Growth Per Year: 2003/04 to 2008/09        4%

Source: ACTC




salaries and facility maintenance costs) are “fixed” in that they typically do not vary with changes in
service quantities. As shown in the bottom of Table 14, the resulting cost model for FY 2006/07 is as
follows:

Annual Operating Cost =                $37.73 X vehicle-hours of service +
                                              $1.02 X vehicle-miles of service +
                                                      $262,339

This equation can be used both to evaluate the costs associated with service changes, as well as to allocate
operating costs to particular routes. It provides a more accurate estimate of costs for a particular service
element than a total per-hour or per-mile cost factor.

ARTS Operating Characteristics

Annual Ridership and Operating Quantities

ARTS annual ridership characteristics by route/service for the 2007 calendar year are presented in Table
15 and depicted in Figure 11. Total annual ridership was 104,113 one-way passenger-trips in the 2007
calendar year, including both The Arc (VMRC contract) and regular passengers. As presented, the Route
S service provided the greatest number of one-way passenger-trips (31,022), followed by Route M
(28,644) and Route C (10,656). The remaining combined fixed routes totaled 33,720 one-way passenger
trips. Of these, the Route X service provided the greatest number of annual one-way passenger-trips
(9,914), followed by Route I (8,418), Route P (5,169) and Route V (4,597). Route R, the new service
implemented in February 2007, had a total of 2,302 passengers, while Route K had 3,009 passengers for
the year. The small contract service Route TM had a total of 382 one-way passenger trips.

As also presented in Table 15, annual vehicle service miles totaled 300,871, and 14,346 vehicle service
hours were operated during the 2007 calendar year. During the year, the greatest amount of service was
provided on the Route M service (3,859 hours and 84,588 miles), followed by Route S (3,367 hours and
44,389 miles) and Route X (2,242 hours and 63,178 miles). A total of 249 days of service were operated,
181 of which were school days.


Amador County                                                                              LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                              Page 37
Page 38
                                                         FIGURE 10: Transportation Development Act Funding History

                                       $1,400,000




                                       $1,200,000




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                       $1,000,000




                                        $800,000
                                                                                                                                  Local Jurisdictions
                                                                                                                                  Ped/Bike
                                                                                                                                  ACTC
                                        $600,000                                                                                  ARTS



                                        $400,000




                                        $200,000




                                             $-
                                                    2004-05        2005-06        2006-07        2007-08     2008-09 (Forecast)




Transit Development Plan
          Amador County
  TABLE 14: ARTS Fiscal Year 2006-07 Expenses & Cost Allocation
                                                                              Allocation                                Total
  Line Item                                                  Fixed             Hourly               Per Mile           Expense

  Operating Personnel Expenses
    Salaries/Wages                                                             $376,781                                  $376,781
    Benefits                                                                   $110,689                                  $110,689
                     Subtotal: Personnel                            $0         $487,470                     $0           $487,470

  Administrative Expenses
    Administration Salary                                   $142,065                                                     $142,065
    Administration Benefits                                  $41,735                                                      $41,735
    Communications                                            $5,736                                                       $5,736
    Household Expense                                         $1,670                                                       $1,670
    Office Expense                                            $4,903                                                       $4,903
    G.S.A. Cost Allocation                                        $0                                                           $0
    Professional/Specialized Service                         $31,745                                                      $31,745
    Janitorial Services                                       $6,300                                                       $6,300
    Publications & Legal Notices                              $9,366                                                       $9,366
    Rents & Leases, Equipment                                 $2,904                                                       $2,904
    Special Dept. Expenses                                    $1,513                                                       $1,513
    Transportation & Travel                                   $2,765                                                       $2,765
    Utilities                                                $11,638                                                      $11,638
                    Subtotal: Administrative                $262,339                   $0                   $0           $262,339
  Vehicle Expenses
     Insurance--vehicles                                                         $43,226                                  $43,226
     Mechanic Salary                                                                                 $98,828              $98,828
     Mechanic Benefits                                                                               $29,033              $29,033
     ARTS Fuel                                                                                       $94,633              $94,633
     Maintenance-Equipment                                                                           $84,220              $84,220
                         Subtotal: Vehicles                         $0          $43,226             $306,714             $349,939

                 Total Bus Service Expenses                 $262,339           $530,696              $306,714           $1,099,749


                                                                               Vehicle
                                                                               Service              Vehicle
                  Service Factors for FY 206-07                                Hours              Service Miles
                                                                               14,064               300,950
      Vehicle Service Hour Cost Factor                        $37.73
      Vehicle Service Mile Cost Factor                         $1.02
      Annual Fixed Cost                                     $262,339

  Note: Costs per service factor are for bus service only and exclude purchased transportation.

  Source: Amador Regional Transit System Budget, LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. interpretation.




Amador County                                                                                       LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                                       Page 39
Page 40
                                       TABLE 15: Annual Operating Data and Route Evaluation - Calendar Year 2007

                                                                                                                                                                          Route
                                                                                            Route M          Route S         Route I         Route P       Route X          Route V              Route C          Route K         Route TM            Route R




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                                                                                            Jackson -                                      Amador -
                                                                                         Jackson -          Sutter Ck                        Jackson -    Sacramento      Sutter Hill - Pine Sutter Hill - Ione
                                                                                        Mace Meadow          Shuttle     Sutter - Ione       Plymouth      Express         Grv - Volcano      - Camanche Kinder- garten           Route TM             Rural                 Total

                                       Passenger Trips                                      28,644           31,022          8,418            5,169           9,914           4,597              10,656            3,009            382                2,302               104,113

                                       Vehicle Service Hours                                3,859            3,367           1,267            1,061           2,242            392               1,009              263             191                694                  14,346
                                       Vehicle Service Miles                                84,588           44,389          22,547           27,009          63,178          6,576              26,305            2,390           7,260              16,629               300,871

                                       Passenger Trips per….
                                         Vehicle Service Hour                                7.42             9.21            6.64             4.87            4.42           11.72               10.56            11.42            2.00               3.32                  7.26
                                         Vehicle Service Mile                                0.34             0.70            0.37             0.19            0.16            0.70                0.41             1.26            0.05               0.14                  0.35

                                       Cost Factors
                                        Marginal Operating Costs                        $     236,490   $      175,760   $      72,209   $      68,939    $    152,006    $      21,942      $      66,192    $      12,628   $       14,902      $          44,015        $854,158
                                        Allocated Fixed Operating Costs                 $      71,972   $       62,802   $      23,629   $      19,796    $     41,822    $        7,319     $      18,820    $       4,915   $        3,563      $          12,949        $267,586
                                        Total Annual Operating Costs                    $     308,462   $      238,562   $      95,838   $      88,735    $    193,828    $      29,261      $      85,012    $      17,543   $       18,465      $          56,964    $1,121,744

                                       Operating Costs
                                         Op. Cost per Passenger Trip                    $       10.77   $         7.69   $       11.38   $       17.17    $       19.55   $           6.37   $         7.98   $        5.83   $        48.34      $            24.75        $8.20

                                       Farebox Revenue                                  $      21,759   $       19,991   $       6,498   $       3,936    $     15,795    $      15,595      $      56,297    $       2,990   $       15,042      $             908        $158,809
                                         Regular                                        $ 21,758.92     $ 19,990.66      $    6,497.94   $     3,935.90   $   15,794.65   $     2,456.27     $     3,741.42   $    2,989.60   $          -        $          907.90    $    78,073.25
                                         VMRC Contract                                     N/A             N/A                N/A              N/A             N/A        $    13,138.80     $    52,555.19        N/A        $    15,042.86           N/A             $    80,736.85
                                       Farebox Recovery Ratio                               7%             8%                 7%                4%             8%              53%                66%              17%             81%                 2%                    14%
                                       Operating Subsidy Requirement                    $     286,704   $      218,572   $      89,340   $      84,799    $    178,033    $      13,666      $      28,715    $      14,553   $        3,423      $          56,056        $962,935
                                          Subsidy per Passenger Trip                    $       10.01   $         7.05   $       10.61   $       16.41    $       17.96   $           2.97   $         2.69   $        4.84   $            8.96   $            24.35        $9.25

                                       Source: Amador Regional Transit Services, 2008




Transit Development Plan
          Amador County
                                                                          FIGURE 11: Total Annual Ridership by Route, January 2007 - December 2007




Amador County
                                                                 35,000




Transit Development Plan
                                                                 30,000



                                                                 25,000



                                                                 20,000



                                                                 15,000




                                       One-Way Passenger Trips
                                                                 10,000



                                                                  5,000



                                                                     0
                                                                          Route M   Route S   Route I   Route P   Route X   Route C   Route V   Route R   Route TM   Route K
                                                                                                                        Route




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                           Page 41
Annual Ridership by Route and Run

Total annual ridership is presented by route and run in Table 16. As indicated, the two busiest runs were
the S2 run (9:20 AM Jackson/Sutter Creek) and the M5 run (3:15 P.M. - Jackson/Mace Meadow). The
former run provided 10,952 annual one-way passenger-trips and the latter provided 9,184 one-way
passenger-trips. The 5:40 AM M1 run provided 8,252 annual one-way passenger-trips and the 11:55 AM
Route S4 run totaled 8,109 one-way passenger trips.

The runs with the lowest ridership were the 11:10 AM P2 run (926 annual passenger-trips) and the R2 run
with 705 one-way passenger trips. Because the TM1 and TM2 runs are contract only and serviced by a
smaller vehicle (Chevrolet Suburban), these ridership numbers were not considered when comparing the
trends.

Monthly Ridership by Route

General monthly ridership by month is shown in Table 17, and ranged between 7,768 one-way trips to
over 10,000 one-way trips. According to this data, May has the highest cumulative systemwide ridership
(10,067 one-way passenger trips) followed by March (9,789 one-way passenger trips), October (9,785
one-way passenger trips) and August (9,497 one-way passenger trips). July and December experience the
lowest, with 6,715 and 7,493 one-way passenger trips, respectively. These numbers reflect trends in the
local school schedules. Spring and fall months are higher due to school in session, while summer and
December reflect common school vacations and breaks.

When analyzing the data for each specific route, the data reflects that three of the six major fixed routes,
specifically Routes M, I and P, have the lowest ridership in June and July. Route M had a total of 1,886
one-way trips in June and 1,488 in July, Route I had 549 one-way trips in June and 495 one-way trips in
July, and Route P had 333 one-way trips in June and 243 one-way trips in July. These low ridership
numbers can be attributed to the fact that these routes serve the major schools in Amador County which
are not in session most of June or at all in July. This is further evidenced by Route K, which is only
operated during the school year, which shows there was no ridership in July and very little in June.

Ridership by Type of Fare Paid

Table 18 presents the total ridership by type of fare paid in the 2007 calendar year. As presented, general
one-way passes comprised the majority of fares paid (19,035 one-way fares or 21.5 percent), followed by
students (18,870 one-way fares or 21.3 percent) and elderly and disabled riders (13,308 one-way fares or
15 percent). There were approximately 13,320 monthly passes used on all the routes during the year.
Elderly and disabled riders utilized pre-paid tickets more prevalently, with a total of 9,146 used on the
fixed route services. Student riders followed with 7,061 pre-paid tickets, and general riders redeemed
3,006 pre-paid tickets during the year. The contract The Arc passengers totaled 4,611 one-way fares for
Route V, Route C and Route TM combined.

This information is useful in evaluating the type of passengers using the various ARTS services.
Interestingly, the overall ridership on ARTS is relatively balanced between the major groups by fare type:
29 percent of passengers pay student fares, 25 percent each pay elderly/disabled or general public fares,
and 20 percent are The Arc passengers. However, these proportions vary substantially between routes.
The elderly/disabled comprise a majority of Route S riders (59 percent). Students generate the majority of
riders on Routes K, M and P (98 percent, 62 percent and 61 percent, respectively), as well as almost half


LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                             Amador County
Page 42                                                                                Transit Development Plan
Amador County
                                       TABLE 16: Annual ARTS Ridership by Route and Run - January 2007 through December 2007




Transit Development Plan
                                       M: Jackson / Mace                               M1         M2       M3      M4      M5      M6      Total
                                       Meadow                                         8,252      2,167    2,871   3,956   9,184   2,214   28,644
                                       S: Jackson / Sutter                          S2            S3       S4      S5      S6      S7      Total
                                       Creek Shuttle                              10,952         3,947    8,109   3,160   3,013   1,841   31,022
                                                                                        I1         I2       I3      I4                     Total
                                       I: Sutter Hill / Ione
                                                                                      2,515      1,137    1,300   3,466                    8,418
                                                                                       P1        P2        P3                              Total
                                       P: Jackson / Plymouth
                                                                                      2,458      926      1,785                            5,169
                                       X: Amador /                                     X1         X2       X3                              Total
                                       Sacramento Express                             4,341      1,069    4,504                            9,914
                                       C: Sutter Hill / Ione /                         C1         C2                                       Total
                                       Comanche                                       4,655      6,001                                    10,656
                                       V1 V2: Sutter Hill / Pine                V1 and V2                                                  Total
                                       Grove / Volcano                            4,597                                                    4,597
                                                                                       R1        R2                                        Total
                                       R: Rural - Shenandoah
                                                                                      1,597      705                                       2,302
                                       TM1 TM2: VMRC                         TM1 and TM2                                                   Total
                                       Contract Route                            382                                                        382
                                                                                       K1                                                  Total
                                       K: Kindergarten
                                                                                      3,009                                                3,009

                                                                          Total Ridership on All Routes                                   104,113

                                       Source: Amador Regional Transit System, 2008




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                           Page 43
Page 44
                                       TABLE 17: Monthly Ridership by Route - January 2007 through December 2007




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                                          Route M         Route S       Route I   Route P   Route X   Route V   Route C   Route K   Route R   Route TM   Total

                                       January               2,443          2,278        713       484       777       375        807      291        0          34      8,202
                                       February              2,241          2,412        637       424       720       283        720      269       109         31      7,846
                                       March                 2,742          2,843        813       564       861       353        939      336       299         39      9,789
                                       April                 2,292          2,642        710       371       868       336        910      256       194         35      8,614
                                       May                   3,014          2,796        762       486       926       408       1,027     456       157         35      10,067
                                       June                  1,886          2,545        549       333       823       351        961      112       179         29      7,768
                                       July                  1,488          2,268        495       243       887       284        907       0        111         32      6,715
                                       August                2,575          3,012        823       458       862       332        867      230       303         35      9,497
                                       September             2,537          2,654        721       499       781       443        870      323       364         26      9,218
                                       October               2,592          2,864        805       479       894       538       1019      305       258         31      9,785
                                       November              2,811          2,467        712       440       806       469        862      271       257         24      9,119
                                       December              2,023          2,241        678       388       709       425        767      160        71         31      7,493

                                       Source: Amador Regional Transit Services, 2008                                                                            Total   104,113




Transit Development Plan
          Amador County
Amador County
Transit Development Plan
                                       TABLE 18: Annual Fare Passenger Type by Route, January 2007 through December 2007

                                                                                                                                   Route
                                                                                        Route M   Route S   Route I   Route P   Route X    Route V   Route C   Route K   Route TM   Route R   Total


                                       Total Elderly and Handicapped                     2,110     8,803     629        90       1,413       26        222        6         0         9       13,308
                                       Total Students                                   10,475     1,444    2,504      1,812       -         60        487      2,083       0         5       18,870
                                       Total General                                     4,600     3,684    1,264       715      8,194       52        471       31         0         24      19,035
                                       Total Monthly Passes                               772      5,036    1,578       657       11        2,466     2,780       4         0         16      13,320

                                       Total Elderly and Handicapped
                                       Pre-Paid                                           370      8,528     136        17        0          17        72         4         0         2       9,146
                                       Total General Pre-Paid                             918      928       130        92        0          27        77        15         0        819      3,006
                                       Total Student Pre-Paid                            3,831     736       797        672       0          76        57        852        0         40      7,061
                                       Total ARC Contract                                 N/A      N/A       N/A        N/A      N/A         450      3,779      N/A       382       N/A      4,611
                                       Total Revenue Passengers                         23,076    29,159    7,038      4,055    9,618       3,174     7,945     2,995      382       915      88,357


                                       Proportion of Total Passengers by Type
                                        Elderly / Handicapped              11%                     59%       11%       3%        15%        1%        4%        0%         0%        1%        25%
                                        Student                            62%                      7%       47%       61%       0%         4%        7%        98%        0%        5%        29%
                                        General Public                     24%                     16%       20%       20%       85%        2%        7%        2%         0%        92%       25%
                                        ARC Contract                        N/A                    N/A       N/A       N/A       N/A        92%       83%       N/A       100%       N/A       20%

                                       Source: Amador Regional Transit Services, 2008




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                           Page 45
(47 percent) on Route I. The general public generate the majority of ridership on Routes R and X, with 92
percent and 85 percent of total ridership on these routes. Finally, The Arc ridership generates the majority
of ridership on Routes TM, V and C (with 100 percent, 92 percent, and 83 percent, respectively). Overall,
this data reflects the many functions that ARTS fulfills for area residents.

Bus Stop Activity

Appendix A includes a table showing boarding activity for all bus stops served by ARTS, including those
on call. The data was provided by ARTS, which had the drivers of each route document the average
number of passengers boarding the bus on February 27 and February 28, 2008. As shown, The Arc had
the greatest number of passenger activity, with 20 boardings and alightings on the day of the survey,
followed by ARTS (18 passengers and the Jackson Hill Apartments (17 passengers). Three stops had 16
passengers – Sutter Creek Auditorium, Main and California and Wal-Mart. Following these was the
Jackson Elementary School stop (15 passengers), Albertsons (14 passengers), and the Sierra House
Restaurant and Rollingwood Estates stops, each with 12 passengers. Another four stops had 10 boarding
and alightings – Argonaut Junior High, the 65th Street Light Rail Station, Raley’s and the Senior
Center/Oak Manor stop. It is important to note that information for all of the routes was not provided,
therefore the boarding data is not completely accurate for the survey dates.

ARTS Route Performance Analysis

The ridership and financial data can be used to conduct a “route performance analysis” to gain further
insight into the efficiency and effectiveness of ARTS’ service. Ridership and operating statistics for
calendar year 2007 were reviewed to identify average passenger activity, fares and operating quantities.
Performance measures regarding the effectiveness of each route are the passenger-trips per vehicle-mile of
service and passenger-trips per vehicle-hour of service. Measures of the efficiency of each service are the
operating cost per passenger-trip, the farebox return ratio, and the operating subsidy per passenger-trip.

Route Effectiveness

Effectiveness reflects the relationship between the amount of service provided and the resulting ridership
served:

    The number of one-way passenger-trips provided per vehicle service hour averaged 7.26 during
    the year, as presented in Table 15 above and shown in Figure 12. The Route V Sutter Hill/Pine
    Grove/Volcano service achieved the greatest number of one-way passenger-trips per vehicle service
    hour (11.72), followed by Route K Kindergarten (11.42) and Route C Sutter Hill/Ione/Comanche
    (10.56). Of the regularly serviced fixed routes (both VMRC contract and ARTS), the Route R Rural
    service produced the lowest number of one-way passenger-trips per vehicle service hour (3.32),
    followed by Route X Amador/Sacramento Express (4.42) and Route P Jackson/Plymouth (4.87).

    Overall, an average of 0.35 one-way passenger-trips were provided per vehicle service mile. The
    Route K Kindergarten service achieved the greatest number of one-way passenger-trips per vehicle
    service mile (1.26), followed by Route V Sutter Hill/Pine Grove/Volcano and Route S Jackson/Sutter
    Creek service, both with 0.70. The Route R Rural service only achieved 0.14 one-way passenger-trips
    per vehicle service mile, while Route X Amador/Sacramento Express achieved 0.16 and Route P
    Jackson/Plymouth achieved only 0.19. This data is presented graphically in Figure 13.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                            Amador County
Page 46                                                                               Transit Development Plan
                                                                                                             FIGURE 12: Annual Ridership Per Vehicle Service Hour by Route

                                                               14.00




                                                               12.00                                                                                           11.72
                                                                                                                                                                                       11.42

                                                                                                                                                                           10.56
    Annual Ridership per Vehicle Service Hour




                                                               10.00
                                                                                                                 9.21



                                                                                       8.00
                                                                                                    7.42

                                                                                                                            6.64

                                                                                       6.00

                                                                                                                                       4.87
                                                                                                                                                  4.42

                                                                                       4.00
                                                                                                                                                                                                                3.41


                                                                                                                                                                                                    2.00
                                                                                       2.00




                                                                                       0.00
                                                                                                   Route M      Route S    Route I    Route P    Route X      Route V     Route C     Route K     Route TM     Route R




                                                                                                             FIGURE 13: Annual Ridership Per Vehicle Service Mile by Route

                                                                                            1.40

                                                                                                                                                                                          1.26

                                                                                            1.20
                                                Annual Ridership per Vehicle Service Mile




                                                                                            1.00




                                                                                            0.80
                                                                                                                  0.70                                             0.70


                                                                                            0.60



                                                                                                                                                                             0.41
                                                                                            0.40                              0.37
                                                                                                     0.34



                                                                                                                                         0.19
                                                                                            0.20                                                    0.16
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   0.14

                                                                                                                                                                                                      0.03

                                                                                            0.00
                                                                                                    Route M      Route S    Route I    Route P    Route X      Route V      Route C     Route K     Route TM     Route R
                                                                                                                                                           Route




Amador County                                                                                                                                                                         LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                                                                                                                         Page 47
Route Efficiency

The total annual operating cost for calendar year 2007 was $1,121,7443. Using the “cost model” discussed
above (adjusted to reflect inflation effects between the 2006-07 fiscal year and the 2007 calendar year),
the annual operating costs were allocated to each of the various routes. Note that these costs include both
“marginal costs” (those costs specifically required to operate an individual route) as well as “fixed costs”
(those costs required for administrative and facility purposes for the overall system). Eliminating any one
service would result in savings equal to the marginal costs, but would not materially affect the allocated
fixed operating costs.

As presented in Table 15 and shown in Figure 14, the Route M Jackson/Mace Meadow service incurred
the greatest amount of operating costs ($308,462), followed by the Route S Jackson/Sutter Creek Shuttle
($238,562) and the Route X Amador/Sacramento Express ($193,828).

Systemwide farebox revenues totaled $158,809 in calendar year 2007, and were assigned to the various
routes. Fares directly collected were assigned to the route on which they were collected. For pass
revenues, the proportions of total pass uses on each route were identified (by type) and used to allocate
pass revenues to each route. Finally, contract revenues generated by a specific route were assigned to the
appropriate route. By subtracting the total fare revenue of $158,809 from the operating cost of
$1,121,744, it is possible to determine the operating subsidy required for the system as a whole, which
was $962,935 in the 2007 calendar year. These financial figures, combined with the ridership figures,
yield the following measures of route efficiency performance:

      The average operating cost per passenger trip was $8.20, which is relatively high for a traditional
      fixed route service, but reasonable for a deviated fixed route service operated in a rural area. This
      figure ranges from a high of $24.75 on the Route R Rural service to a low of $5.83 on the Route K
      Kindergarten service and $6.37 on the Route V Sutter Hill/Pine Grove/Volcano service. Other routes
      with relatively low values consist of Route S ($7.69) and Route C (7.98). See Table 15 and Figure 15
      for details.

      Dividing farebox revenues by the allocated operating costs yields the farebox return ratio for each
      route. As presented in Table 15 and Figure 16, this measure is substantially greatest for Route C and
      V (at 66 percent and 53 percent, respectively), which reflects the fact that the associated VMRC
      contract revenues for these routes count as “farebox revenues.” Of the other routes, Route K yields a
      farebox return ratio of 17 percent, followed by 8 percent on Route S and Route X. The poorest
      performing routes by this measure are Route R (2 percent) and Route P (4 percent).

      Perhaps the “best” single measure of financial route efficiency is the subsidy required per
      passenger trip. This measure directly reflects the key public “input” (public dollars) with the key
      desired “output” (transit passenger-trips). As shown in Figure 17, the operating subsidy per one-way
      passenger-trip ranges from a low of $2.69 on the Route C Sutter Hill/Ione/Camanche to a high of
      $24.35 on the Route R Rural service. Other routes ranking relatively poorly by this measure are
      Routes X and P ($17.96 and $16.41, respectively) while Routes C and V rank relatively well ($2.69
      and $2.97, respectively).

As shown above, the relative performance of the various existing ARTS routes differs depending upon the
measure under consideration. In general, however, the two routes with VMRC funding (Routes C and V)
have the best overall performance, reflecting both the funding provided by the contract as well as the
“group trip” nature of the service. Route K also performs relatively well, followed by Route S. At the
opposite end, Route R stands out as the poorest performing route, followed by Route X and Route P.

3
    Annual operation cost was adjusted for inflation, based on FY 2006-2007 information

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                                Amador County
Page 48                                                                                   Transit Development Plan
                                                                                                FIGURE 14: Total Annual Operating Costs by Route

                                $350,000


                                                                                    $308,462

                                $300,000




                                $250,000                                                        $238,562
       Annual Operating Costs




                                $200,000                                                                                             $193,828




                                $150,000




                                                                                                             $95,838
                                $100,000                                                                                   $88,735                             $85,012


                                                                                                                                                                                               $56,964
                                                      $50,000
                                                                                                                                                   $29,261
                                                                                                                                                                          $17,543   $18,465


                                                                           $-
                                                                                    Route M     Route S      Route I       Route P    Route X      Route V     Route C    Route K   Route TM   Route R
                                                                                                                                            Route




                                                                                      FIGURE 15: Annual Operating Cost Per Passenger Trip by Route

                                                                           $30.00




                                                                                                                                                                                                 $24.75
                                                                           $25.00
                                Annual Operating Cost per Passenger Trip




                                                                           $20.00                                                               $19.55


                                                                                                                                 $17.17



                                                                           $15.00


                                                                                                                  $11.38
                                                                                       $10.77

                                                                           $10.00

                                                                                                    $7.69                                                                 $7.98

                                                                                                                                                              $6.37
                                                                                                                                                                                     $5.83

                                                                            $5.00




                                                                             $-
                                                                                      Route M      Route S        Route I        Route P        Route X      Route V     Route C    Route K     Route R




Amador County                                                                                                                                                             LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                                                                                                             Page 49
                                                                                    FIGURE 16: Annual Operating Farebox Return Ratio by Route

                                                                        70%
                                                                                                                                                    66%



                                                                        60%

                                                                                                                                          53%


                                                                        50%
                                     Annual Operating Farebox Revenue




                                                                        40%




                                                                        30%




                                                                        20%
                                                                                                                                                               17%




                                                                        10%                     8%                              8%
                                                                                   7%                     7%
                                                                                                                      4%
                                                                                                                                                                           2%

                                                                         0%
                                                                                 Route M      Route S    Route I    Route P   Route X   Route V   Route C    Route K    Route R




                                                                                           FIGURE 17: Annual Subsidy Per Passenger Trip by Route

                                                                        $30.00




                                                                        $25.00                                                                                         $24.35
          Annual Operating Subsidy per Passenger Trip




                                                                        $20.00
                                                                                                                              $17.96

                                                                                                                    $16.41


                                                                        $15.00




                                                                                                          $10.61
                                                                                   $10.01
                                                                        $10.00


                                                                                                $7.05


                                                                                                                                                             $4.84
                                                                         $5.00
                                                                                                                                         $2.97     $2.69



                                                                          $-
                                                                                  Route M      Route S    Route I   Route P   Route X   Route V   Route C   Route K    Route R




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                                                                                                     Amador County
Page 50                                                                                                                                                        Transit Development Plan
It should be noted that, although the Route TM service is shown on Table 15, its operating data has been
excluded from detailed analysis. The service is provided to a single resident that contracts out service
with the Valley Mountain Regional Center and ARTS, and therefore is not indicative of the standard fixed
route or other transit services provided in the area. Given this, the details of the route cannot accurately be
used to compare this service with the other ARTS and VMRC contract routes. In addition, as the
Kirkwood Shuttle service began operation only for the 2007-08 ski season, adequate ridership data has
not been generated to allow direct comparison with the other services.

Amador Regional Transit System Capital Assets

ARTS Vehicle Fleet

As shown in Table 19, ARTS has a total vehicle fleet of fourteen vehicles, all but two of which are
equipped with wheelchair lifts. The two vehicles not accessible are Chevrolet Suburbans, which are used
as support vehicles and for contract services. The remaining fleet includes two vehicles that can carry up
to 32 passengers and two wheelchair users, eight 20-passenger vehicles with capacity for either two or
four wheelchair users, and two vehicles equipped to carry 28 passengers and 2 wheelchairs. Two buses
were purchased in 2006, as well as an additional Suburban support vehicle.

ARTS Passenger Facilities

Along the ARTS bus routes, there are a total of 15 bus shelters. These shelters are located in the following
locations:

    Sutter Hill: Two shelters located at SR 49 and Ridge Road, one at the northeast corner and the other
    at the southwest corner. Another shelter is located at Independence High School on Academy Drive.

    Jackson: Five shelters are located in Jackson: at the ARTS Terminal, on Argonaut Lane/Westview
    Drive, Court Street/Placer Drive, at Petkovitch Park and at the Kennedy Meadows residential
    development.

    Pine Grove: In Pine Grove, two shelters are located along SR 88 at Ranch Road (Ranch House
    Estates) and at Pine Grove Town Hall, as well as one at Pine Acres on Tabeau Road.

    Pioneer: There are three shelters located in Pioneer: at the Payless Market on SR 88, at the Sierra
    Trading Post on Silver Drive, and at Amador Station along SR 88.

    Mace Meadow: One formal bus shelter is located in Mace Meadows on Fairway Drive.

While there is currently no formal transit center for passengers, ARTS and the ACTC have recognized the
importance of such a facility to the operations of a transit system. In 2007, a study began to explore the
options for a transit transfer center in Sutter Creek, with a specific location at the intersection of Valley
View Road and Bowers Drive. While a specific design is currently being developed, conceptual core
components that have been proposed include covered bus shelter area with restrooms, bus transit area,
disabled parking, and standard auto parking.

Operations and Maintenance Facility

Operations and administration functions for ARTS are conducted at the ARTS Terminal, located at
11400b American Legion Drive. While the mailing address is in Jackson, the physical location is


Amador County                                                                 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                 Page 51
Page 52
                                       TABLE 19: ARTS Vehicle Fleet
                                                                                                      Wheelchair   Fuel     Purchase
                                       Bus #     Year                   Make               Capacity   Tie-Downs    Type       Date      Funding Source

                                         1       2004        Chevrolet - Suburban 4x4       6 pax       None        Gas      Sep-06          Local
                                                                                                                                       Rural Transit Grant
                                         2       2003             Glaval Concorde           32 pax        2        Diesel    Jan-02
                                                                                                                                            Program




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                         3       2003             Glaval Concorde           32 pax        2        Diesel    May-03    Sacramento County

                                         9       1980        Chevrolet - Suburban 4x4       8 pax       None        Gas      Dec-80          Local

                                         14      1998     Ford - El Dorado, Aerotech 240    20 pax        2        Diesel    Aug-98     Proposition 116

                                         15      1998     Ford - El Dorado, Aerotech 240    20 pax        2        Diesel    Aug-98     Proposition 116

                                         16      1998     Ford - El Dorado, Aerotech 240    20 pax        2        Diesel    Aug-98     Proposition 116

                                         17      1998     Ford - El Dorado, Aerotech 240    20 pax        2        Diesel    Aug-98     Proposition 116
                                                              Ford E450 - El Dorado,
                                         18      1999                                       20 pax        2        Diesel    Mar-99     Proposition 116
                                                                    Aerotech
                                                              Ford E450 - El Dorado,
                                         19      1999                                       20 pax        2        Diesel    Apr-99     Proposition 116
                                                                    Aerotech
                                                                                                                                       Rural Transit Grant
                                         27      2003       Ford - Goshen GC2 Diesel        20 pax        4        Diesel    Mar-03
                                                                                                                                            Program
                                                                                                                                       Rural Transit Grant
                                         28      2003       Ford - Goshen GC2 Diesel        20 pax        4        Diesel    Mar-03
                                                                                                                                            Program
                                                           Chevrolet - El Dorado Arrow
                                         29      2006                                       28 pax        2         Gas      May-06     Federal Earmark
                                                                    Elite 320
                                                           Chevrolet - El Dorado Arrow
                                         30      2006                                       28 pax        2         Gas      May-06     Federal Earmark
                                                                    Elite 320

                                       Source: Amador Regional Transit System




Transit Development Plan
          Amador County
considered Martell, and the schedule identifies the location as Sutter Hill. The ARTS operations offices
are located in the main building, while ACTC offices are located in the main building as well as a mobile
building located in the rear of the property.

The maintenance facility includes four bays with the capacity for four small vehicles. Currently, due to
constraints on office space, there are mobile office facilities located to the rear which does not allow for
vehicles to pull through the facility – vehicles must access on the south side only. Most vehicle
maintenance activities are performed on-site, with the exception of tire changing, transmission rebuilds,
and body work.

ARTS Administration

ARTS is governed by a six-member board of directors and managed by a general manager. Management
is active in the transportation planning process. The entire governing board for ARTS is also the Board of
Directors of the Amador County Transportation Commission. Three members of this board are appointees
of Amador County, and the remaining three are appointees of the five incorporated cities and towns in the
County. Day-to-day operations, hiring, training, maintenance, route scheduling, etcetera, are all overseen
by the general manager.

ARTS Staffing and Training

ARTS employees operate the transit service entirely in-house. ARTS employs twelve part-time drivers
and four substitute part-time drivers under supervision of the general manager. The general manager is
responsible for scheduling drivers, fare collections, driver training and safety. Drivers provide dispatching
as part of their daily shift. Maintenance is handled in-house by the assistant manager, who also provides
driver training. The assistant manager also develops an ongoing safety program that includes four safety
meetings per year.

Drivers are involved in the safety program. Before departing on their routes, drivers perform a pre-trip
inspection of their vehicle. Drivers keep a log of the passengers by type and route, which is used to
reconcile ridership figures with farebox receipts.

Recent Accident History

ARTS had three vehicle accidents in 2007 that resulted in property damage, two of which were
preventable. These three accidents involved the bus hitting a parked car (preventable), backing into a wall
at the terminal (preventable), and the bus being hit by a vehicle coming out of a driveway (non-
preventable).

ARTS Marketing

ARTS engages in very little formal marketing efforts. In FY 2006/07, the marketing budget was $9,366.
At less than 1 percent of total annual budget, this figure is substantially below the transit industry
standards of 2 to 3 percent. However, due to increased concern regarding this issue, the Operating Budget
for FY 2007/08 provides $20,000 for such uses. The organization uses an attractive and modern logo,
which provides a good public image of the service. In the past, marketing for ARTS included advertising
through radio, newspaper, and the local cable TV; such activities, as well as expanded methods, are
encouraged particularly by members of the SSTAC (Social Services Transportation Advisory Council).
Additional marketing efforts discussed by ARTS and the ACTC have included training for seniors in
order to educate them on and promote the services available. In addition, it is worth noting that ARTS
currently has no marketing materials available in Spanish.

Amador County                                                                 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                 Page 53
OTHER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES IN AMADOR COUNTY
A number of other transportation services operate in Amador County besides ARTS. From taxicab
companies, to the school district and a number of social service providers, each is described in the
following pages.

Visitor Tour Buses

In 2008, a new tour bus operation began in Sutter Creek, offering five different bus tours to visitors of
Amador County. The tours, which cost $15.00 per person, include trips to mines, farms, wineries, ghost
towns and cemeteries, and are booked through the American Exchange Hotel in Sutter Creek. The fleet
includes a 20-passenger bus and a 12-passenger van, both owned and operated by the hotel.

Blue Mountain Transit

Blue Mountain Transit is a private van service based in San Andreas which contracts with VMRC to
provide transportation to The Arc program in Sutter Hill. The vehicles pick up developmentally disabled
clients at their homes in the morning and bring them to the site, returning them in the afternoon. In
addition, Blue Mountain is available for charter service on weekends. As of February 2008, discussions
are underway regarding a possible new service called Reserve-a-Ride. This would be a taxi voucher
program under contract to CTSA.

Amador Unified School District Transportation

The school district in Amador County operates 31 vehicles, 7 of which are wheelchair accessible. The
school district serves approximately 2,000 students daily, or 720,000 passenger trips annually. In previous
years, the school district had experienced a transportation crisis because of unmet safety standards for the
vehicles, and all pupil transportation was suspended for several weeks. During this period, ARTS used
every available vehicle throughout the day to accommodate the increased ridership.

Taxi Cab Companies

Pioneer Cab Company, located in Jackson, is one of two taxicab companies operating in Amador County.
Pioneer operates two vehicles during peak periods. Fares are $2.50 per pick up plus $2.00 per mile
traveled. Under a previous owner, Pioneer Cab had an agreement with the Amador Tuolumne Community
Action Agency (funded through Valley Mountain Regional Center) to provide subsidized taxicab voucher
service, but the program was discontinued in 1994 because of insurance issues, licensing issues and the
amount of administrative oversight required

Delta Sierra Cab, also located in Jackson, has three vehicles and operates 24 hours per day. Current
passenger fares are $2.75 per mile traveled, with no pick-up fee.

Jackson Rancheria

The Jackson Rancheria Casino Hotel and Conference Center provides on-site and off-site transportation.
In terms of on-site services, the casino circulates buses through the parking lots, and transport guests and
employees to the hotel and casino. These vehicles also operate Friday, Saturday and Sunday employee
transportation service between the Italian Picnic Grounds (located at SR 49 and Ridge Road) and the
casino. The casino also has a fleet of buses that are used for the “Youth Bus” program. This program
transports employee’s children from school to an on-site after school day care program, which is available

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                            Amador County
Page 54                                                                               Transit Development Plan
to children 18 months to 12 years old. Due to the location of new medical clinics to serve local tribal and
low income residents adjacent to the casino, there have been discussions regarding a shuttle to the site. At
this time, there are no specifics regarding this potential service.

Vanpool Programs

In previous years, Caltrans coordinated a vanpool program for state employees that operated between
Sutter Creek and Sacramento. This service is no longer available, as Caltrans has privatized their vanpool
service. Vanpools are now organized by Enterprise Rent-a-Car’s vanpool system, however at this time,
there are no vanpools set up for state employees located in Amador County. However, the Sacramento
Transportation Management Association is currently seeking riders for open seats on two additional
vanpools originating in the County.

The Foothill Rideshare program was developed in response to increased population in Amador, Calaveras
and Tuolumne Counties and the long commutes that are associated with the residents, particularly due to
a low job to housing ratio in these areas. The program is a collaborative effort between the three counties
and is made possible through grants including Valley Clean Air Now and Caltrans. In 2006-2007 there
were 256 participants within the three areas, and it is hoped that the number will double to 552 in 2007-
2008.

Calaveras Transit

Calaveras Transit primarily serves Calaveras County, but it does connect with ARTS service at Raley’s
on the Route S Jackson/Sutter Creek Shuttle service five times per day. In addition, direct transfers
between Calaveras Transit and the ARTS Route X runs allow Calaveras County (and Tuolumne County)
residents access to and from Sacramento.

Other Social Service Transportation Providers

Amador County Behavioral Health

Amador County Behavioral Health operates two 7-passenger vans to transport clients to agency
sponsored programs, as well as therapy, medical, dental or court appointments. Clients include persons
with disabilities, individuals with low income, elderly residents and children/youth.

Amador Support, Transportation and Resource Services (STARS)

Amador STARS oversees cancer patient transportation services to radiation and chemotherapy treatments
in Sacramento, Stockton, Lodi and Amador County. There are three vans provided, one for each of the
above locations, which leave the STARS office at a designated time. Pick up from Ione and Plymouth
may be arranged as well. All drivers are volunteers and there are no costs to clients associated with this
service.

Area 12 Agency on Aging

The Agency on Aging utilizes Title IIIB funds to provide transportation services for adults over 60 years
of age. AAA provided funds for a wheelchair accessible van to Common Ground Senior Services. The
agency, through contracted service providers, is responsible for transportation to and from medical
appointments within the County on an as needed and as available basis.




Amador County                                                                LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                Page 55
Amador County Social Services

The Amador County Mental Health Department provides door to door transportation for clients in order
to meet appointments with therapists and doctors on-site. The program is partially funded through Cal
Works and Proposition 36. The Social Services department also provides transportation for job programs
and classes in the mornings and afternoons, depending on the program.

The Arc of Amador and Calaveras County

The Arc serves developmentally disabled persons in Amador and Calaveras counties. Transportation is
part of their overall program, which includes a day program in Sutter Hill, a job program and an after-
hours recreation program. The Arc has six vans in Amador County, two of which are wheelchair lift-
equipped. In addition to the transportation The Arc provides in-house, the VMRC purchases
transportation services for The Arc through both Blue Mountain Transit and ARTS (such as Route C and
Route V).

Mother Lode Job Training Agency

Mother Lode Job Training offers employment and training to residents of Amador County. They provide
clients with either ARTS passes or mileage reimbursement. Transportation needs vary greatly depending
on client load and whether or not clients have operable vehicles.

Senior Services, Inc.

Senior Services assists seniors throughout the County, including a transportation program called
“Common Grounds,” which uses volunteers with private cars to transport clients (over the age of 60,
disabled persons and low income residents) locally for medical trips. A lift-equipped van is available to
provide trips (with advance notice), but most of the trips are provided with volunteer vehicles. The
transportation is funded through an Area 12 Agency on Aging grant and operates Monday through Friday,
8:00 AM to 5:00 P.M.

According to information discussed at SSTAC meetings, there is an increasing demand for senior
transportation as elderly people struggle to maintain their independence in the face of an insufficient
number of skilled nursing facilities in Amador County. In addition, oncology or dialysis services are no
longer available in Amador County, which dictates the need for non-emergency medical transportation to
Stockton and Sacramento.

Community Compass

The Community Compass is a behavioral management program, offering services to developmentally
disabled residents of Amador County. Programs and services include social skills development, public
transportation training, personal management, recreation/leisure skills and vocational assessment and
training. During the program hours of 8:00 AM and 3:00 P.M., Community Compass provides
transportation free of charge to their clients. The transportation, provided by staff drivers, is available for
rides to and from work, activities, and pick up/drop off at the clients residence.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                               Amador County
Page 56                                                                                  Transit Development Plan
American Legion

The American Legion Post 108 provides ambulance services for a fee to residents of Amador and
Calaveras Counties. Trips must originate or terminate in either of these locations, and ambulance trips are
limited to a maximum length of 60 miles. Sacramento, Stockton and Modesto, where a number of medical
facilities are located, are within the 60-mile range.

Other Social Services Transportation Information

The Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) was formed as a requirement of the
statewide Transportation Development Act. SSTAC is comprised of members of various agencies in the
County, including but not limited to Social Services, Commission On Aging/Common Ground, The Arc,
and First 5 Amador County. Members of the general public also attend and participate in the Council’s
meetings. The SSTAC researches transportation needs in the community and has produced summaries
and informative materials, such as the Transportation Workshop Summary (February 22, 2006).
Additionally, in 2006, SSTAC completed surveys of residents regarding transportation needs. Limited
information is available, in the form of the Hispanic population sample results, which shows that:

    Of the employed (full and part-time) and student Hispanic population, the majority of respondents
    carpool to work or ride with a family member or friend, followed by walking and riding public transit.

    When asked how many persons in the household would ride the bus if it met their transportation
    needs, an overwhelming majority of respondents stated that two or three persons would ride transit. A
    small percentage stated only one person or that four or more persons would use the bus system if it
    met their needs.




Amador County                                                               LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                               Page 57
                                       This page left intentionally blank.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                   Amador County
Page 58                                                                      Transit Development Plan
                                                                                                    Chapter 4
                                                               Transit Demand Analysis
A key step in developing and evaluating transit plans is a careful analysis of the mobility needs of various
segments of the population and the potential ridership of transit services. The analysis presented below
segments the potential ridership for transit services into four categories:

    Commuters,
    Elderly/disabled trips not associated with a social service program,
    Trips associated with social service programs in Amador County, and
    Intercity transit services (service between two or more cities).

This analysis yields estimates of the demand that could be expected given a high level of transit service
for each category of ridership, and for each portion of the study area. It represents an “upper bound” for
an idealized transit service that could serve all of the needs of the community. In reality, no service can
efficiently serve one hundred percent of this potential demand. Table 5 in Chapter 2 presents the
estimated 2000 demographic information that will be used, in part, to estimate the upper bound demand
for transit in Amador County. In addition, this chapter presents a review of the transit needs discussed in
the annual Unmet Needs process.

EXISTING TRANSIT DEMAND
General Public Employee Transit Demand (Commuters)

An important element of the total demand for transit services in the region is commuter services. This
element has become an important “market” for other transit systems. One quantitative source on which to
base an analysis of commuter demand is provided by the 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package
from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation. As indicated in Table
20, the total number of employed Amador County residents in 2000 was 13,378. Of these persons, 9,843
were employed within the County.

In evaluating a reasonable maximum commuter mode split for ARTS services, it is necessary to consider
those factors that impact the feasibility of transit service in the regional commuter market. In light of
observed transit commuter mode split in other similar areas, a maximum feasible mode split of 2.0
percent of all commuter travel is appropriate. Typically, each employee makes two trips approximately
250 days per year; thus, the 9,843 commuters in 2000 would have made a total of approximately
4,921,500 commuter trips per year. Applying the 2.0 percent mode split suggests a total commuter
demand for transit trips on the order of 98,400 one-way transit passenger-trips per year:

         9,843 × 2 × 250         =        4,921,500 total annual one-way person trips
         4,921,500 × 2.0%        =        98,400 annual one-way transit trips

Rural Non-Program-Related Transit Demand (elderly/disabled, non-program)

The demographic data summarized in Table 5 of Chapter 2, were applied to a series of analytical
techniques to provide estimates of the various types of transit demand. These estimates were then
considered as a whole to develop overall estimates of total transit demand.




Amador County                                                                LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                Page 59
       TABLE 20: Estimated General Public Employee Transit Demand
                                                                                                Annual One-Way Trips
                                                                                          (1)
       Census Tract Number & Area Description                                 Employees          Total       Transit

           1    High Country (Kirkwood, Pioneer)                                 1,677          838,500       16,770
           2    North County (Plymouth, Amador City)                             1,365          682,500       13,650
        3.01    N.W. County (Part of Ione, to Sac. Co. line)                     416            208,000        4,160
        3.02    S.W. County (Parts of Ione & Sutter Creek)                       2,489          1,244,500     24,890
        4.01    Central County (parts of Sutter Creek, Jackson, Pine Grove)      1,481          740,500       14,810
        4.02    Central County (parts of Jackson, Rancheria, Pine Grove)         1,360          680,000       13,600
           5    South County (parts of Jackson, Pine Acres)                      1,055          527,500       10,550
      Total     Amador County                                                    9,843          4,921,500     98,430

       Note 1: Employees Working outside the home, within the County.
       Sources: US Census Bureau and LSC, Inc.



An important source of information regarding demand generated by programs is the Transit Cooperative
Research Program (TCRP) Project A-3: Rural Transit Demand Estimation Techniques. This study,
completed by SG Associates, Inc., represents the first substantial research into demand for transit service
in rural areas and small communities since the early 1980s. Study documents present a series of formulae
relating the number of participants in various types of programs with the observed actual demand for
service, based upon a database of 185 transit agencies across the country. The TCRP analytical technique
uses a “logit model” approach to the estimation of transit demand, similar to that commonly used in urban
transportation models. This model incorporates an exponential equation that relates the quantity of service
and the demographics of the area.

As with any other product or service, the demand for transit services is a function of the level of supply
provided. To use the TCRP methodology to identify a feasible maximum demand, it is necessary to
assume a high supply level, as measured in vehicle-miles of annual transit service per square mile of
service area. For rural areas such as Amador County, a reasonable maximum level of service would be to
serve every portion of the County with four round-trips of transit service daily, Monday through Friday.
This equates to approximately 2,400 vehicle-miles of transit service per square mile per year. However,
due to the dispersed nature of the population in Amador County, this level of service is not feasible. As a
point of comparison, the current services in the ARTS service area are equivalent to approximately 510
annual vehicle miles per square mile.

Employing this service density to the population of Amador County yields the estimated elderly/disabled
non-program transit demand presented in Table 21 below. As indicated, a total of 47,670 one-way
passenger-trips would be generated by elderly persons, and 4,810 one-way passenger-trips by persons
with mobility-limitations. Combined, this equates to 52,480 annual one-way passenger-trips for
elderly/mobility limited persons if a very high level of service could be provided. The TCRP
methodology can also be applied to general public non-work trips for the County. As indicated in Table
21, a total demand of 15,730 annual passenger-trips is estimated for the study area if a very high level of
service could be provided.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                                             Amador County
Page 60                                                                                                Transit Development Plan
      TABLE 21: Amador County Rural Non-Program Transit Demand

                                                                                          Estimated Annual Passenger-Trip Demand



                                                                                                       Mobility-    General                    Estimated Daily
      Census Tract Number & Area Description                                              Elderly      Limited       Public       TOTAL        Transit Demand


               1   High Country (Kirkwood, Pioneer)                                       11,300         740         3,340        15,380                  62

               2   North County (Plymouth, Amador City)                                    5,920         650         2,610         9,180                  37

           3.01    N.W. County (Part of Ione, to Sac. Co. line)                            1,650         260          560          2,470                  10

           3.02    S.W. County (Parts of Ione & Sutter Creek)                              7,280        1,040        4,040        12,360                  49

           4.01    Central County (parts of Sutter Creek, Jackson, Pine Grove)             8,780         520         1,870        11,170                  45

           4.02    Central County (parts of Jackson, Rancheria, Pine Grove)                8,670        1,110        2,110        11,890                  48

               5   South County (parts of Jackson, Pine Acres)                             4,060         490         1,190         5,740                  23

          Total    Amador County                                                          47,670        4,810        15,730       68,210              273


      Note: Demand estimated based on the methodology presented in "TCRP Report 3: Workbook for Estimating Demand for Rural Passenger Transportation ."



Social Service Program-Related Transit Demand

In rural areas such as Amador County, the transit trips made by residents to and from specific social
programs (such as for job training or sheltered workshops) typically comprise a large part of the total
transit demand. This demand differs from other types of demand, in that clients in each program
specifically generate it.

Annual program demand was estimated by using the TCRP Project A-3: Rural Transit Demand
Estimation Techniques, based on the number of participants in each program, factored by typical
transportation demand rates for similar programs around the country served by relatively high level of
transit services. As presented in Table 22 below, total Countywide demand of annual program trips is
128,750 one-way passenger-trips. This figure largely consists of potential demand for travel to and from
senior nutrition, mental health, Head Start, and sheltered workshops (job training and developmental
services day programs), and many of these trips are likely already being directly provided by social
service programs. Again, the reader is cautioned that this number reflects the demand if a very high level
of service was possible to every portion of the County.

Intercity Transit Demand

In order to estimate demand for intercity bus service, a model was used from the report “Planning
Techniques for Intercity Transportation Services.” In general, the model considers the following input
factors: the number of passengers traveling one-way on a given route is a
function of the frequency of service, the population served, the cost to the rider, and the distance for the
trip. The model that proved to be appropriate is of the following format:

          PASS/MO = CONST x RTFREQ a x SERVPOP b x FARE/MI c x DIST d

where:

          PASS/MO = the number of one-way passengers boarding per month for the route segment
          specified.
          CONST = a constant specifically derived for this equation.


Amador County                                                                                                           LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                                                           Page 61
       TABLE 22: Amador County Rural Program-Related Transit Demand

                                                                                                                 Feasible       Feasible
                                                                                                     2007       Number of       Number
      Program Type                                          Criteria                                 Total     Participants     of Rides

      Development Services:                                 Participants                                                   65      27,950
      Development Services: Case Management                 Mobility Limited, all ages                  865                23         900
      Development Services: Pre-school                      Mobility Limited, aged 16 to 64          35,521                20       4,460
      Group Home                                            Number of Residents                                            10       2,910
      Headstart                                             Persons age 3 &4                         35,521               117      30,830
      Headstart: Homebase                                   Families in Poverty                      35,521                40       1,210
      Headstart: Other                                      Total Population                          1,496               184         340
      Job Training                                          Age 18 to 59                             21,807               122      16,730
      Mental Health                                         Mental Disability Population                865                24       8,290
      Mental Health: Case Mgt.                              Age 18 to 59                             21,807               183       1,160
      Nursing Home: Large Facility                          Number of Residents                                           128       1,600
      Senior Nutrition                                      Number of Participants                     6,405               50      12,400
      Sheltered Workshop: ARC                               Number of Participants                                         52      19,970
                         Total Potential Ridership                                                                      1,088     128,750

      Note: Demand estimates based on the methodology presented in "TCRP Report 3: Workbook for Estimating Demand for Rural Passenger
      Transportation ."



         RTFREQ = scheduled round-trips per week on the route.

         SERVPOP = the population served: defined as the sum of the populations of villages, towns, and
         cities directly along the route, divided by 100.

         FARE/MI = fare per mile in cents, found by dividing the cost of a one-way fare between the end
         points of each route by the one-way distance between the end points of the route.
         DIST = one-way distance between the endpoints on the route.
                    a
                      = the exponent for round trip frequency
                    b
                      = the exponent for service population
                    c
                      = the exponent for fare per mile
                    d
                      = the exponent for one-way distance

The specific model that was used for the estimation of demand in this study was chosen based on the
route distance of the study area. The final equation used for this study was designed for route distances of
between 20 and 200 miles:

                    PASS/MO = 6.871 x RTFREQ1.093 x SERVPOP0.409 X FARE/MI-0.352

Distance was left out of the final equation because this formula was designed specifically for distances of
between 20 and 120 miles one way. Intercity trips of different lengths are quite different in terms of trip
purpose and frequency.

This equation can be applied to estimate the potential demand for services between Jackson and a large
urban area such as Sacramento, with a 2006 population of 453,781. Assuming one round-trip per day
throughout the year (365 days per year), and a fare equivalent to $0.10 per mile (an industry standard), the
total demand for intercity service can be calculated to equal 13,820 one-way passenger-trips per year, or
approximately 38 passengers per one-way trip. Again, this figure represents an upper bound, as discussed
above.


LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                                                           Amador County
Page 62                                                                                                              Transit Development Plan
ADA Paratransit Demand

According to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, any public entity which operates a fixed route
must provide paratransit or other special service to individuals with disabilities that is comparable to the
level of service provided to individuals without disabilities who use the fixed route system. Paratransit
service may include a separate Dial-A-Ride type service or route deviation service within three-quarters
of a mile of the fixed route. Rather than parallel fixed route and paratransit systems, ARTS offers general
public route deviation service within one-half mile of the fixed route and there is no ADA eligibility
process nor are the number of ADA boardings/route deviations recorded. Therefore, this demand category
does not specifically pertain to current ARTS services. However, it is worthwhile to evaluate this type of
demand in case parallel fixed route and paratransit services were to be provided in the future.

Demand estimation techniques for ADA paratransit ridership are outlined in Transit Cooperative
Research Program (TCRP) Report 119 (2007). A demand estimation tool was developed to forecast
passenger trips made by ADA eligible individuals when a system operates without capacity constraints as
defined by ADA regulations. A strong statistical correlation was found between the following six factors
and demand for paratransit service:

    Population for the actual ADA service area, usually the area within a three-quarter mile radius of the
    fixed route.

    The base ADA paratransit fare.

    The proportion of applicants for ADA eligibility who are found to be “conditionally” eligible.

    Whether or not conditional trip eligibility is determined on a trip by trip basis.

    The proportion of the population below the poverty level.

    The effective on-time window policy. For example if a vehicle is considered late beginning 20
    minutes after the scheduled pick up time and the passenger is expected to be ready 10 minutes early,
    then the “effective on-time window” is 30 minutes.

A paratransit demand tool was developed in the TCRP report using the factors listed above. As the
demand tool assumes that the transit agency has an existing ADA paratransit service with an established
ADA eligibility process, a few assumptions had to be made in order to apply the tool to Amador County:

    Transit demand figures developed in this Chapter assume a high level of transit service to all parts of
    the County. Therefore, the population of the ADA service area was assumed to be the population
    within three-quarter miles of a fixed route system which would serve all portions of the County
    (including upcountry communities along SR 88).

    Per ADA, the base fare for ADA paratransit service may be up to twice the fare for the fixed route.
    As an official ARTS paratransit service would likely be a route deviation service as opposed to a
    Dial-A-Ride service, it is assumed for this analysis that the base paratransit fare would be $1.25, or
    $1.00 fixed route fare plus $0.25 for a route deviation. This base fare is in-line with other rural route
    deviation services.

    As ARTS has no eligibility system in place, the mean percent conditionally eligible for the 28
    representative systems surveyed in the TCRP report (21 percent) was used.


Amador County                                                                  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                  Page 63
    It was assumed that conditional trip eligibility would not be determined on a trip by trip basis.

    The effective on-time window of 15 minutes was applied, as per the ARTS riders guide.

The model indicates that there is potential ADA paratransit demand of 38,093 annual passenger trips. It
should be noted that raising the paratransit fare to $2.00 or adding conditional trip screening would
significantly reduce ADA demand. As ADA paratransit trips could be categorized as non-program,
program or employee demand, ADA paratransit demand calculations are not included in the demand
summary table below.

Existing Transit Demand Summary

A summary of the various elements of transit demand in Amador County is presented in Table 23. As
indicated, total transit demand for all trip purposes within the County is estimated to equal 309,210
annual one-way passenger-trips if a very high level of service could be provided. The largest portion of
estimated demand is generated by Social Service program-related transit demand (41.6 percent), followed
by commuter trip demand (31.8 percent), non-program-related elderly and disabled demand (17 percent),
non-program-related general public demand (5.1 percent) and intercity demand (4.5 percent). Compared
with current ARTS ridership, this demand estimate indicates that ARTS currently serves roughly one-
third of potential demand. It should be emphasized, however, that these numbers represent a maximum
potential under optimal service conditions throughout Amador County. It is not financially feasible to
expect that the transit systems that serve Amador County could ever approach this level of service.

                  TABLE 23: Total Transit Demand in Amador County
                                                                        One-Way Passenger-Trips
                                                                      Average                  % of
                  Type of Demand                                       Daily         Annual    Total


                  Commuter                                                  394       98,430   31.8%
                  Rural Non-Program Elderly/Disabled                        210       52,480   17.0%
                  Rural Non-Program General Public                           63       15,730    5.1%
                  Social Service Program                                    515      128,750   41.6%
                  Intercity                                                  38       13,820    4.5%
                                                          Total           1,220      309,210   100%

                  Note: Annual figures assume maximum level of transit service is provided.


FORECAST OF FUTURE TRANSIT DEMAND
The analysis of existing transit demand can be combined with the various forecasts of future population,
development and traffic flows presented in previous chapters in order to estimate future levels of transit
demand. Using the same categories of demand discussed above, these forecasts were made by reviewing
forecast growth in the parameter most closely associated with each demand category:

    Growth in transit demand for commuting within Amador County was forecast based upon an estimate
    of future employment within the County, which in turn was based on the forecast of future
    development shown in Table 10 multiplied by standard factors for the number of employees per unit
    of commercial/institutional development.

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                                     Amador County
Page 64                                                                                        Transit Development Plan
    Growth in transit demand for commuting outside the County and for intercity transportation was
    forecast based on the growth in average daily traffic volumes on all major roadways crossing the
    County line.

    Growth in non-program general public and social service program transit demand was forecast based
    on growth in total population.

    Growth in non-program elderly/disabled transit demand was based on the average growth rate of
    elderly (age 75 and above) population and the general public.

Table 24 and Figure 18 present the resulting forecasts of transit demand. A review of this table yields
some useful insights into future demands:

    Overall transit demand is forecast to increase by 161,700 one-way passenger-trips per year, or 52
    percent over current demand, by 2030. In the five-year short-range transit planning horizon, demand
    will increase by 9 percent.

    The increase is expected to accelerate slightly over the long-range planning period, with the greatest
    increase (39,600) occurring between 2025 and 2030 compared to an increase of 27,800 over the
    coming five year period.

    In the five-year short range plan period, the largest single source of growth is expected to be
    commuting demand within the County (34 percent of total growth).

    In the 22-year long range plan period, however, social service program demand will constitute the
    largest single source of growth in transit demand (31 percent of total growth).

    Compared against the existing demand by category, the non-program elderly/disabled demand will
    have the greatest increase over the long term, growing by 78 percent over current levels (due in large
    part by the aging of the Baby Boom generation). Other relatively large increases are expected in the
    out-of-County commuter demand and the intercity demand, both of which are forecast to increase by
    65 percent.

UNMET NEEDS HEARINGS
In addition to the quantitative analysis of transportation needs, unmet needs hearings, held annually by the
Amador County Transportation Commission, provide insight into the needs perceived by the community.
In Amador County, and unmet transit need is defined as “any deficiency in the system of public transit
services, specialized transportation services, paratransit services or private transportation services
within Amador County which has been identified by community members or through the regional
planning process and which has not been funded and implemented.”

A summary review of comments made at the hearings and those submitted by the Amador County Social
Service Transportation Advisory Council for FY 2005/06, 2006/07 and 2007/08 identify the following
unmet needs and concerns:

    Need for Saturday Service: A common request is for Saturday service by residents and social
    service agencies. It was noted that this was implemented previously although very low ridership was
    experienced and therefore, the service is no longer available.



Amador County                                                                LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                Page 65
Page 66
                                       TABLE 24: Forecast of Future Amador County Demand for Transit Service
                                                                                                                                              Short Range Growth   Long Range Growth
                                       Demand Category                  2008       2010      2013      2015      2020      2025      2030        #          %         #        %




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                       Total Annual Transit Demand: 1-Way Passenger-Trips
                                       Commuter
                                            In Amador County            77,100    80,900    86,500    90,200    99,600    109,000   118,400   9,400       34%      41,300    26%
                                            Out of County               21,300    22,600    24,400    25,700    28,900     32,000    35,100   3,100       11%      13,800     9%
                                       Non-Program Elderly/Disabled     52,500    54,300    57,300    62,100    69,900     81,600    93,300   4,800       17%      40,800    25%
                                       Non-Program General Public       15,700    16,100    16,600    17,500    19,000     20,400    21,900     900        3%       6,200     4%
                                       Social Service Program          128,800   132,100    136,400   143,900   155,800   167,600   179,400    7,600       27%      50,600    31%
                                       Intercity                        13,800    14,600    15,800    16,700    18,700     20,700    22,800   2,000        7%       9,000     6%
                                       Total                           309,200   320,600    337,000   356,100   391,900   431,300   470,900   27,800      100%     161,700   100%

                                       Change in Total from 2008                  11,400    27,800    46,900    82,700    122,100   161,700
                                       Change in Total from Previous              11,400    27,800    35,500    35,800     39,400    39,600

                                       Percent Change From 2008
                                       Commuter
                                            In Amador County                        5%       12%       17%       29%       41%       54%
                                            Out of County                           6%       15%       21%       36%       50%       65%
                                       Non-Program Elderly/Disabled                 3%        9%       18%       33%       55%       78%
                                       Non-Program General Public                   3%        6%       11%       21%       30%       39%
                                       Social Service Program                       3%        6%       12%       21%       30%       39%
                                       Intercity                                    6%       14%       21%       36%       50%       65%
                                       Total                                        4%        9%       15%       27%       39%       52%




Transit Development Plan
          Amador County
                                                                                              FIGURE 18: Forecast of Future Transit Demand




Amador County
                                                                      500,000




Transit Development Plan
                                                                      450,000                                                                Intercity

                                                                      400,000

                                                                                                                                             Program
                                                                      350,000


                                                                      300,000
                                                                                                                                             Non-Program
                                                                                                                                             General Public
                                                                      250,000

                                                                                                                                             Non-Program
                                                                      200,000                                                                Elderly/Disabled




                                       Annual 1-Way Passenger-trips
                                                                      150,000
                                                                                                                                             Out-of-County
                                                                                                                                             Commuter
                                                                      100,000

                                                                                                                                             In-County Commuter
                                                                       50,000


                                                                           0
                                                                                2008   2010      2013     2015    2020    2025     2030
                                                                                                          Year




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                           Page 67
    Need for Taxi Voucher Service: Another common request is for a taxi voucher system after normal
    ARTS operating hours and on the weekends when no other public transit is available. This service is
    especially discussed by members of SSTAC, ARTS, and Blue Mountain Transit, as many seniors and
    disabled persons in the community do not have any means of transportation during the weekends.
    Currently, the ACTC is working to find a qualified vendor to supply this service.

    Extended Service Hours: In particular, students who participate in after school activities do not
    have public transit available to them. Members of the community have frequently requested extended
    hours so that participants of school sports and extracurricular activities can use the bus system. This
    service has also been requested by members of various social service agencies.

    Service Area Expansion: In 2007 there were requests for expanded service between
    Plymouth/Shenandoah Valley and the Ione Family Learning Center due to lack of accessibility based
    on the current routes. Additionally, it was requested that there be a ski bus to take teenagers to
    Kirkwood Ski Area during the winter on Saturdays.

The ACTC establishes a local definition of “unmet transit demand that is reasonable to meet,” within state
Transportation Development Act criteria. An unmet transit need is currently considered “reasonable to
meet” if the following criteria are present:

    The service would not result in ARTS incurring expenditures that exceed the maximum amount of
    Transportation Development Act Funds available;

    The farebox recovery ratio and passengers per hour associated with the transit need equate to a
    minimum of 80 percent of the current average;

    Transit services currently provided are not duplicated as a result of the proposed service;

    The members of the public or Amador County have accepted the proposed service;

    Existing needs, instead of a future need, is the basis for the proposed service;

    When using an average operating cost of $80.00, the per passenger costs of the service do not exceed
    $10.66;

    The Sacramento service, while not complying with the directly preceding cost item, is considered
    reasonable to meet due to the existing relationship for coordinated service with Sacramento officials
    and transit providers.

At the hearings during the past three years, the ACTC has determined that three of the unmet needs
expressed were reasonable to meet. The taxi voucher service meets the above criteria, and is currently in
the process of being developed; the ACTC is awaiting a qualified vendor that could provide such a
service. The service expansion to the Shenandoah Valley has already been implemented through the new
Route R service, beginning February 2007. Likewise, the Kirkwood Ski Shuttle began service in the
winter of 2007/2008.

RURAL MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY TRANSIT DEMAND
One key long-range planning issue regarding public transit services in Amador County is the potential
impact of large residential developments. These developments are typically relatively high-income, built
around a recreational amenity such as a lake or golf course. A good indication of potential ridership can

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                             Amador County
Page 68                                                                                Transit Development Plan
be gained by reviewing ridership generated by similar, well-established developments in other Sierra
foothill areas of Northern California. These “peer areas” were selected based on their geographic
similarity to Amador County and the presence of a public transit program.

As shown in Table 24, the communities of Cameron Park (in El Dorado County) and Alta Sierra, Lake
Wildwood and Lake of the Pines (in Nevada County) were reviewed. (The community of Meadow Vista
in Placer County was also considered, but removed from the study as Placer County Transit serves this
area by reservation only, twice per day.) Each of these communities are served six days per week by
public transit. These developments are largely used as primary homes, rather than vacation homes. As
shown, the proportion of residences used on a seasonal basis ranges from 1 percent (in Cameron Park) to
8 percent (in Lake Wildwood). In addition, all of these areas started development in the 1960’s or early
1970’s, and thus have had at least three decades to “mature.” Other specific details of the specific areas
are as follows:

    Cameron Park is a suburban area in Western El Dorado County. There are approximately 14,549
    persons living in 5,703 homes in Cameron Park (not including Shingle Springs down the road)
    according to the U.S. Census 2000. The area also has a variety of commercial uses. The community is
    served by the El Dorado Transit Authority’s Cameron Park Route, which makes seven loops around
    the community each weekday and two loops on Saturdays. This is a deviated fixed-route service,
    deviating up to three-quarters of a mile off of the route. El Dorado Transit also operates a Dial-A-
    Ride service seven days a week, generally from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Although the service is open to
    the general public, elderly and disabled passengers are given priority. Note that the Cameron Park
    area is also served by EDCTA’s downtown commuter transit program, which is not considered in this
    evaluation of local transit services.

    Lake Wildwood is a gated residential/recreational community just north of State Route 20 in western
    Nevada County, roughly 7 miles west of Grass Valley and 22 miles east of Marysville. It also
    includes a small commercial center. Gold Country Stage (the Nevada County public bus program)
    serves this area on Route 6 (a fixed-route), travels from Grass Valley on the Rough and Ready
    Highway to Penn Valley and terminates at the Wildwood Center in Lake Wildwood before returning
    to Grass Valley. Door-to-door service is provided seven days a week by Telecare, Inc. (a non-profit
    organization funded in part through the County).

    Alta Sierra is located along SR 49 roughly 7 miles south of Grass Valley and 16 miles north of
    Auburn. It is also a residential/recreational community with a small commercial center, but is not
    gated. Gold Country Stage Route 5 provides service to the entrance of Alta Sierra six times per day
    on weekdays, and four times per day on Saturdays, as part of the route between Grass Valley and
    Auburn. (Lake of the Pines and Lake Wildwood are gated.) Door-to-door service is provided seven
    days a week by Telecare, Inc.

    Lake of the Pines is another rural residential/recreational development along SR 49, roughly 12
    miles south of Grass Valley and 11 miles north of Auburn. While it is gated, there is relatively more
    commercial land uses outside the gate than at the other two Nevada County developments. Route 5
    picks-up/drops-off passengers at the entrance to Lake of the Pines, at the same level of service
    provided to Alta Sierra. Door-to-door service is provided seven days a week by Telecare, Inc.

Ridership information for each of these areas was gathered from the transit service providers, for both
fixed- (or deviated fixed) route and paratransit. This information is presented in Table 25. Next, the
annual ridership was divided by the population and housing unit count for each area, in order to identify
the transit utilization rate, by service type. The results of this review can be summarized as follows:


Amador County                                                               LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                               Page 69
Page 70
                                       TABLE 25: Ridership Generated by Rural Master-Planned Communities

                                                                                                                                                                   Annual Fixed Route      Annual Demand Response




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                                                                                                                                                  Passenger Boardings        Passenger Boardings
                                                                                                               % Units                                                             Per                       Per
                                                                                                Housing       Seasonal                                                   Per     Housing            Per   Housing
                                       Community                  County        Population       Units         Use (1) Transit Provider       Transit Service   Total  Capita     Unit     Total Capita      Unit
                                                                                                                               El Dorado
                                                                                                                                              7 x weekday/
                                       Cameron Park             El Dorado         14,549          5,703           1%         County Transit                     15,372   1.06     2.70     5,500   0.38    0.96
                                                                                                                                                 2 x Sat.
                                                                                                                               Authority

                                                                                                                             Gold Country     6 x weekday/
                                       Alta Sierra               Nevada            5,796          2,557           2%                                            2,500    0.43     0.98     900     0.16    0.35
                                                                                                                                Stage            4 x Sat.

                                                                                                                             Gold Country     7 x weekday/
                                       Lake Wildwood             Nevada            4,868          2,391           8%                                             600     0.12     0.25     1,380   0.28    0.58
                                                                                                                                Stage            6 x Sat.

                                                                                                                             Gold Country     6 x weekday/
                                       Lake of the Pines         Nevada            3,806          1,594           5%                                            2,900    0.76     1.82     530     0.14    0.33
                                                                                                                                Stage            4 x Sat.

                                                                                                                                                Weighted
                                                                                                                                                                         0.74     1.75             0.29    0.68
                                                                                                                                                Average


                                       Note 1: Housing units for seasonal, recreational or occasional use as per US Census 2000.
                                       Source: EDCTA, Gold Country Stage, US Census and LSC.




Transit Development Plan
          Amador County
    The average resident in these developments generated 0.74 one-way transit passenger trips per year.
    This transit trip rate ranges from a low of 0.12 in Lake Wildwood to a high of 1.06 in Cameron Park.

    On a per-housing-unit basis, transit trip generation averages 1.75 one-way passenger trips per unit per
    year. This value ranges from a low of 0.25 in Lake Wildwood to 2.70 in Cameron Park.

    Regarding Dial-A-Ride service, the average resident generated 0.29 transit passenger-trips per year.
    Cameron Park also generates the highest rate (0.38) in this category, but the lowest rate (0.14) is
    generated by Lake of the Pines.

    The Dial-A-Ride transit trips per dwelling unit averages 0.68 trips per year, ranging from a low of
    0.33 in Lake of the Pines to a high of 0.96 in Cameron Park.

The relatively higher number of transit trips generated by the Cameron Park development as compared to
the Nevada County developments can be partially attributed to the fact that El Dorado Transit makes a
loop through the development so there are a greater number of homes within a comfortable walking
distance of the bus route. The communities in Nevada County are only served by transit at the entrance of
the community and Lake Wildwood and Lake of the Pines are gated communities. In addition, passengers
in Cameron Park within a three-quarters of a mile distance of the route that desire service to their door
have the option of either Dial-A-Ride or a route deviation request. Cameron Park also has a higher level
of commercial development than the Nevada County developments.

In summary, rural master planned residential/recreational developments generate relatively low transit
demand. As an example, for the entire western Nevada County area, the average resident generates
roughly 4.0 one-way fixed-route transit trips per year while the average household generates 9.8 trips –
almost ten times the transit trip generation rates observed in the rural residential developments. The
Telecare program in Nevada County generates 0.84 transit trips per capita per year for the area as a
whole, while the trip rate for the rural residential areas averages 0.19. Another comparison is the existing
ridership per capita generated by the ARTS program in Amador County, which is 2.7 passenger-trips per
capita per year. Comparing this figure against the average total (fixed-route plus Dial-A-Ride) demand
per capita of the peer areas (as the ARTS deviated fixed-routes provides both of these service types), this
indicates that transit demand in these rural residential areas is roughly 60 percent lower than the existing
demand per capita in Amador County.

This relatively low observed demand for transit services in rural residential master planned developments
can be attributed to several factors. Perhaps most importantly, residents tend to be “self selected” to have
relatively little need for transit services. The large majority of the housing units in these developments are
relatively expensive (particularly in the absence of low-income housing requirements), and not within
reach of those persons unable to own a car for economic reasons. They are also relatively unattractive
housing choices for persons with transportation disabilities or requiring frequent access to medical or
social services. Even after the development “matures,” the ridership data does not indicate that the need
for transit service approaches that of other housing choices. These peer areas have been in existence long
enough for the original home purchasers to “age in place,” yet Dial-A-Ride transit ridership remains
roughly one quarter of that found for the transit service area as a whole.




Amador County                                                                 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                 Page 71
                                       This page left intentionally blank.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                   Amador County
Page 72                                                                      Transit Development Plan
                                                                                                  Chapter 5
                           Amador County Goals and Objectives Analysis
BACKGROUND
An important element in the success of any organization is a clear and concise set of goals and the
performance measures and standards needed to attain them. This can be particularly important for a public
transit agency, for several reasons:

    Transit goals can be inherently contradictory. For instance, the goal of maximizing cost effectiveness
    can tend to focus services on the largest population centers, while the goal of maximizing the
    availability of public transit services can tend to disperse services to outlying areas. To best meet its
    overall mission, a public transit agency must therefore be continually balancing the trade-offs
    between goals. Adopting policy statements also allows a discussion of community values regarding
    transit issues that is at a higher level of discussion than is possible when considering case-by-case
    individual issues.

    As a public entity, a public transit organization is expending public funds, and therefore has a
    responsibility to provide the public with transparent information on how funds are used and how well
    it is doing in meeting its goals. Funding partners also have a responsibility to ensure that funds
    provided to the transit program are being used appropriately. The transit organization therefore has a
    responsibility to provide information regarding the effectiveness and efficiency by which public funds
    are being spent.

    An adopted set of goals and performance standards helps to communicate the values of the transit
    program to other organizations, to the public, and to the organization staff.

To date, Amador County Transit Services and the Amador County Transportation Commission have not
developed a consistent and comprehensive set of policy statements. The ACTC’s mission statement is “To
achieve partnerships and community consensus in order to fulfill the over-arching goal of the Countywide
Regional Transportation Plan.”

The RTP’s over-arching goal is to “Provide a transportation and circulation system that is safe, efficient,
convenient, comfortable, and that meets the needs of people and goods, and that is compatible with other
scenic, historic, economic and recreational resource values.”

This chapter presents recommended goals, objectives, and standards, specific to the Amador Regional
Transit System (ARTS) and service area. It is important to note that the development of these items is a
recommendation of the Triennial Performance Audit for FY 2003/04 through FY 2005/06 (Majic
Consulting Group, July 2007). This chapter first presents a review of existing and proposed policy
statements, both adopted by the ACTC as well as by other organizations that address transit issues in
Amador County. Recommended policy statements are then presented. Note that this information will be
reviewed and updated as necessary throughout the remainder of the TDP study process.

REVIEW OF EXISTING ADOPTED GOALS
Several planning documents, as discussed in Chapter 3, provide existing adopted policy statements with
regard to transit services. The following is a selection of noteworthy goals from various documents.



Amador County                                                                 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                 Page 73
Regional Transportation Plan

The Amador County Regional Transportation Plan Update (ACTC, 2004) presents the following “Public
Transit” goals, policies, and objectives.

2A Goals

    Goal 2A(1): Provide effective, economically feasible, safe, and efficient public transportation in
    Amador County with emphasis on service to the transportation disadvantaged.

2B Policies

    Policy 2B(1): The ACTC shall support public transit to a maximum that is determined to be
    “reasonable to meet” according to maintained “reasonable to meet” criteria and the TDA. (The ACTC
    shall review the “reasonableness criteria” annually.)

    Policy 2B(2): The ACTC shall require that the Amador Regional Transit System (ARTS) conform to
    those recommendations made in Triennial Performance Audits and in Transit Development Plan(s) to
    be updated every five years.

    Policy 2B(3): The ACTC shall support interregional transportation service to the Sacramento area so
    long as state, federal, or other non-LTF are available to maintain adopted “reasonable to meet”
    criteria.

    Policy 2B(4): The ACTC shall support other inter-County services (Stockton, Calaveras) provided
    that supplemental funding is made available so the service fits adopted “reasonable to meet” criteria.

    Policy 2B(5): The ACTC shall require that claimants for public transportation funds submit an annual
    report, no later than September 30 of each year, covering the information in Section 99247 of the
    Public Utilities Code. This report shall include current year to date and all prior year performance
    data.

    Policy 2B(6): Amador County shall encourage and support the use of public transportation grants
    from state and federal programs to the maximum extent possible.

    Policy 2B(7): The Kirkwood Ski area and other recreation areas to be developed or expanded should
    be required to provide transit services at development’s expense according to the Four County
    Recreational Transit Demand and Feasibility Study, J. Kaplan & Associates (1988), to relieve
    congestion of the existing circulation system.

    Policy 2B(8): The ACTC shall encourage and support both public and provide carpool/vanpool
    programs.

    Policy 2B(9): The ACTC shall promote coordination and consolidation of social service
    transportation services operating within Amador County.

    Policy 2B(10): The ACTC shall support and promote elderly and handicapped accessibility in public
    transportation to the maximum extent practicable.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                           Amador County
Page 74                                                                              Transit Development Plan
    Policy 2B(11): All Amador County planning agencies should provide ARTS with an opportunity to
    review and comment on any major development project which may have an impact on transit
    services. ARTS shall provide input on major development projects to identify locations of bus stops,
    park-and-ride lots, wheelchair, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and other facilities where necessary.

    Policy 2B(12): The ACTC’s policy regarding State Transit Assistance (STA) funds is that they shall
    be held as a reserve to loan capital for grant-funded transit facilities that are repaid by grant
    reimbursements and for other unforeseen transit-related expenses.

2C Objectives

    Objective 2C(1): By February 1, preceding the applicable fiscal year, the ACTC shall conduct a
    public hearing and make a determination in the public record as to whether there are unmet public
    transportation needs that can reasonably be met through expansion of existing transportation systems
    or by establishing new systems in the region.

    Objective 2C(2): ARTS shall continue the contract with Valley Mountain Regional Center for
    services to Amcal Clients on an annual basis.

    Objective 2C(3): ARTS capital improvement program (see Chapter VII, Action Element) should be
    carried out.

    Objective 2C(4): The ARTS Transportation Development Plan should be updated and include
    provisions for a long-term 25-year outlook. (Fulfillment of this objective was recently facilitated by
    state approval of an FTA Section 5313b Transportation Planning grant.)

    Objective 2C(5): Maintain and expand inter-County transit service as growth in demand occurs.

Amador County General Plan

In addition, Amador County is currently updating the General Plan. Working with the General Plan
Advisory Committee (GPAC), staff, and consultants have developed a series of draft goals and policies.
The following draft goals and policies relate to public transit:

    Goal CM-3: Provide transportation alternatives to the automobile.

    Policy CM-3.6: Coordinate with ARTS and other agencies to improve the availability of public
    transit connecting residents to services.

    Policy CM-3.7: Continue to provide public transportation from Amador County to regional job and
    activity centers located outside the County.

    Policy CM-3.8: Encourage the development of facilities which support carpooling and public
    transportation within the County.

Transportation Development Act

The California Transportation Development Act (TDA) sets a minimum “farebox return ratio” for each
public transit organization using TDA funds (under specific articles of the TDA). Put simply, the farebox
return ratio is the ratio of the operating income (largely fare revenues) divided by the non-capital


Amador County                                                                LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                Page 75
expenses. For Amador County, the TDA requires a minimum farebox return ratio of 10 percent (below
which a portion of TDA funds would be withheld). It should be noted that new transit services in rural
areas are expressly eligible under TDA law for exemption from the minimum 10 percent farebox recovery
ratio during the first two years of service. Also, the TDA only requires this ratio to be maintained for the
transit system as a whole, rather than on an individual service or route basis. As TDA does not provide
any requirements or guidance beyond this single systemwide ratio, establishment of specific transit
services performance measures is very much a matter of local discretion.

RECOMMENDED GOALS, PERFORMANCE MEASURES, AND STANDARDS
The following goals, performance measures, and standards are designed to reflect the adopted policy
statements of the region. The goals establish general direction for policies and operation, are value-driven,
and provide a long-range perspective. Standards are quantifiable observable measures that reflect
achievement of the goals. The performance measures provide the mechanism for judging whether or not
the standards have been met.

Five major goals are identified: a service efficiency goal (reflecting efficient use of financial resources), a
service effectiveness goal (reflecting effectiveness in serving passengers), a service quality goal, an
accessibility goal, and a planning and management goal. Reflecting the very different service
environment and expectations, these policy statements are developed independently for the ARTS
Commuter services (Route X) and for the ARTS local route services. All contract services are considered
in the local route services analysis.

Standards are provided as appropriate, based on observed performance of similar transit systems in
California, as well as the existing performance of ARTS transit services. Goals, performance measures,
and standards specific to each type of service are presented in Table 26 along with ARTS quantitative
results for calendar year 2007, where applicable. Areas where ARTS did not meet the standard during the
year are shaded in blue. Data was not available for all performance measures.

Service Efficiency Goal

To maximize the level of services that can be provided within the financial resources associated with the
provision of transit services. (The standards should not be strictly applied to new routes, such as Route R,
for the first two years of service, so long as 60 percent of standard is achieved after one full year of
service and a favorable trend is maintained).

All Services

    Farebox Recovery Ratio Standard – As a collective system, all routes (both local and commuter
    services) should meet or exceed a systemwide recovery ratio of 10 percent. Such a standard would
    comply with TDA standards for non-urbanized transit providers, allowing for various funding
    opportunities in the County.

Commuter Services

These standards apply to the Amador Sacramento Express service.

    Farebox Recovery Ratio Standard – The ratio of farebox income to operating costs should meet or
    exceed 8 percent. Currently, the route is meeting this standard.



LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                              Amador County
Page 76                                                                                 Transit Development Plan
Amador County
                                       TABLE 26: Amador County Goals and Standards for Transit Service




Transit Development Plan
                                          Calendar Year 2007 Results                                               = Does Not Meet Standard



                                                                                                                                            Service
                                                                                                       Service Efficiency Goal        Effectiveness Goal                                                    Service Quality Goal
                                                                         Performance Measure
                                                                                                    Operating      Operating Subsidy                                                                                     On-Time                     Service
                                                                                                  Farebox Return   Per Passenger-Trip Passenger-Trips per                                                              Performance       Missed     Headway
                                                                                                  Ratio Standard        Standard        Vehicle Service   Passenger Amenity Standard        Service Availability    Standard (Minimum     Trips     Standard    Trip Denial
                                       Service                                                     (Minimum)(1)       (Maximum)(1)     Hour (Minimum)         (Shelters & Seating)              Standard            % of Trips On-Time (Maximum)   (Minimum)     Standard
                                       Regional/Commuter Services
                                                                                                                                                                                           Serve Employment
                                                                                                                                                           Seating >= 5 Shelter >= 10     Centers That Can Meet
                                          Standard                                                    8.0%              $18.00                3.0           psgrs/day    psgrs/day            Other Goals?                90%            1%           N/A          N/A
                                          Route X (Amador Sacramento Express)                         8.2%              $17.95                4.4              N/A          N/A                    Yes                    N/A            N/A          N/A          N/A

                                       Local Route Services
                                                                                                                                                           Seating >= 5 Shelter >= 10     Service Within 3/4 mile
                                          Standard                                                    5% 1              $10.50                6.0           psgrs/day    psgrs/day            Fixed-Routes?               95%            1%        60 Minutes      N/A
                                          Route I (Sutter Hill / Ione)                                6.8%              $10.61                6.6               --             --                   No                     N/A           N/A          No           N/A
                                          Route K (Kindergarten)                                      17.1%              $4.83                11.4              --             --                   No                     N/A           N/A          No           N/A
                                          Route M (Jackson / Mace Meadows)                            7.1%              $10.00                7.4               --             --                   No                     N/A           N/A          No           N/A
                                          Route P (Jackson / Plymouth)                                4.4%              $16.40                4.9               --             --                   No                     N/A           N/A          No           N/A
                                          Route R (Rural - Shenandoah / Ione)                         1.6%              $24.34                3.3               --             --                   No                     N/A           N/A          No           N/A
                                          Route S (Jackson / Sutter Creek)                            8.4%               $7.04                9.2               --             --                   No                     N/A           N/A          No           N/A
                                          Route C (Sutter Hill / Ione / Camanche contract)            66.3%              $2.69                10.6              --             --                   No                     N/A           N/A          No           N/A
                                          Route V (Sutter Hill / Pine Grove / Volcano contract)       53.3%              $2.97                11.7              --             --                   No                     N/A           N/A          No           N/A
                                          Total Local Routes                                         13.9%               $8.44                7.9              No              No                   No                     N/A           N/A          No           N/A



                                       Note 1: The individual routes should maintain a minimum of 5% farebox return ratio, however, overall the system should maintain a minimum of 10% in order to obtain TDA funding.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                           Page 77
    Subsidy Standard – The public operation/administrative subsidy per passenger-trip for service should
    not exceed $18.00, based on both industry standards and existing transit system goals. This standard
    should be adjusted annually to account for inflation. In the 2007 calendar year, Route X met this
    standard.

Local Route Services

These standards apply to the local routes, including VMRC contract Route C and Route V.

    Farebox Recovery Ratio Standard – The ratio of farebox income to operating costs should meet or
    exceed 5 percent. All but two routes (Routes P and R) met this standard during calendar year 2007.
    Route P achieved 90 percent of this standard, while R only achieved 32 percent of the standard.

    Subsidy Standard – The public operation/administrative subsidy per passenger-trip for service should
    not exceed $10.50, based on industry standards and recent experience. This standard should be
    adjusted annually to account for inflation. Routes I, P and R were the only routes during the 2007
    calendar year that did not meet this standard. They achieved operating subsidies per passenger-trips of
    $10.61, $16.07 and $23.86, respectively.

    The system as a whole met this standard. During calendar year 2007, ARTS had an average operating
    subsidy per passenger-trip of $8.44.

Service Effectiveness Goal

To maximize the ridership potential of the ARTS services. (The standards should not be strictly applied to
new routes, such as Route R, for the first two years of service so long as 60 percent of standard is
achieved after one year and a favorable trend is maintained.)

All Services

    Improvement in Effectiveness Standard – Increase ridership productivity by at least 3 percent annually
    for each service component.

Commuter Services

    Service Effectiveness Standard – Serve a minimum of 3 passenger-trips per vehicle service hour.
    Route X met this standard in the 2007 calendar year, with approximately 4.4 passenger-trips per
    vehicle service hour.

Local Route Services

    Service Effectiveness Standard – Serve a minimum of 6 passenger-trips per vehicle service hour. All
    but two local routes (Routes P and R) did not meet this standard, however the system as a whole met
    the standard with 7.9 passenger-trips per vehicle service hour.

Service Quality Goal

To provide safe, reliable, and convenient transit services.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                           Amador County
Page 78                                                                              Transit Development Plan
All Services

    Passenger Load Standard – For passenger safety and comfort, vehicles should be sized and the transit
    service operated to limit typical peak loads to the seating capacity. Standing loads shall be limited to a
    maximum of 20 percent of daily local runs and 0 percent of Route X runs.

    Accident Standard – Maintain a minimum of 50,000 miles between preventable collision accidents,
    and 25,000 miles between all types of accidents. In 2005, 2006, and 2007, ARTS vehicles were
    involved in a total of seven (six preventable, and one non-preventable) accidents. Dividing this figure
    into the annual ARTS mileage indicates one accident for roughly every 129,000 miles of service.
    ARTS therefore far exceeds this standards

    Maintenance Standard – Maintain a minimum of 10,000 miles between road calls. While ARTS does
    not currently log road calls, they are reported by staff to be “rare.” Maintaining a simple log of road
    calls (including the cause) is recommended.

    Preventive Maintenance Standard – 100 percent of preventative maintenance actions should be
    completed within 500 miles of schedule. ARTS currently schedules preventive maintenance every
    3,000 miles, and generally meets this standard.

    Vehicle Standard – Vehicles should be replaced at the end of their useful lives and according to FTA
    guidelines. The average fleet age should be no more than six years. ARTS has approximately 50
    percent of the fleet’s vehicles due for replacement. The average age of the fleet is 6.83 years.

    Vehicle Cleanliness Standard – The outside of all vehicles in regular use shall be washed at least
    weekly. Inside, spot cleaning and trash removal shall be conducted at least daily.

    Passenger Complaint Standard – Passenger complaints shall be less than 1 per 5,000 passenger-trips
    (fixed-route). Management response should be provided to all complaints within one working day.

    Training Standard – All services shall be provided by trained, courteous, respectful employees, who
    are sensitive to the needs of passengers.

Commuter Services

These standards can be applied specifically to the Amador Sacramento Express, as shown in Table 26.

    Passenger Amenity Standard – Shelter should be provided at all transit stops serving 10 or more
    passengers per day within the Route X service area, while seating should be provided at all transit
    stops serving 5 or more passengers per day.

    Service Availability Standard – Provide transit service to employment centers that can support
    commuter service consistent with the service efficiency and effectiveness goals.

    On-Time Performance Standard – 90 percent of all trips should be operated “on-time,” defined as not
    early, and no more than 10 minutes late.

    Missed Trips Standard – The proportion of runs not operated or more than 20 minutes late should be
    no more than 1 percent.



Amador County                                                                 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                 Page 79
    Travel Time Standard – Transit travel should take no longer than two times the equivalent automobile
    trip during peak commute times.

Local Route Services

    Passenger Amenity Standard – Shelter should be provided at all transit stops serving 10 or more
    passengers per day within the service area (not including route deviation). Seating should be provided
    at all transit stops serving 5 or more passengers per day.

    On the days of the boarding activity survey (February 27 and 28, 2008), approximately 13 stops had
    ten or more passengers boarding vehicles on the local routes. Of these stops, only two have formal
    bus shelters – The Arc of Amador and Calaveras County/Independence High School and the ARTS
    terminal. Locations, such as Wal-Mart, Albertsons, and Raley’s, as well as the school stops, have
    sheltered areas for passengers to wait, however there are no formal bus shelters or benches.

    Further, according to the survey results, fourteen stops had between 5 and 10 passengers boarding,
    which would require seating per the standard. Of these only three stops provided a shelter and/or
    seating – Petkovich Park, Pine Grove Town Hall, and Payless.

    Service Availability Standard – Provide transit service to residential areas, major medical, shopping,
    government, employment centers, and activity centers that can support route service. The local route
    system shall be designed such that the buses deviate a minimum of three-quarters of a mile from the
    fixed-route, per ADA requirements. Currently, the system deviates only one-half mile from the fixed-
    route and thus does not meet the standard developed in Table 26.

    On-Time Performance Standard – 90 percent of all fixed-route trips and 80 percent of all deviated
    fixed-route trips should be operated “on-time,” defined as not early, and no more than ten minutes
    late. Performance shall be measured at the route terminus, though evaluation of on-time performance
    at intermediate time points is encouraged if an on-time issue is identified.

    Missed Trips Standard – The proportion of runs that are not operated or are more than 15 minutes late
    should be no more than 1 percent.

    Travel Time Standard – Transit travel should take no longer than 3 times the equivalent automobile
    trip during peak commute times.

    Service Frequency Standard – Provide scheduled service with a maximum headway of 60 minutes in
    both directions along each route where possible and cost-effective in order to improve service quality.
    Route S may be a candidate for such service.

Accessibility Goal

To provide a transit system that is accessible to the greatest number of persons while maintaining the
productivity of the system.

    Service Area Standard – Maximize the area provided with transit service while maintaining minimum
    farebox return standards.

    Vehicle Accessibility Standard – Maintain a fully wheelchair-accessible transit fleet.



LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                            Amador County
Page 80                                                                               Transit Development Plan
    ADA Goal – Fully meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This includes route
    deviations of at least three-quarters of a mile from the fixed-routes for ADA eligible residents.

Planning and Management Goal

To evaluate strategies which help management maximize productivity while meeting the transit needs of
the community and develop a transit program that supports comprehensive planning goals.

    Planning Standard – Transit Development Plans shall be updated at a minimum of every four years.

    Service Monitoring Standard – Monitoring reports on the effectiveness and efficiency of transit
    service will be collected and reviewed monthly by ARTS and ACTC staff.

    Transportation Development Act Standard – The requirements of the TDA shall be fully met,
    particularly with regard to addressing those unmet transit needs of the community that are
    “reasonable to meet.”

    Land Use Planning Standard – Development proposals shall be reviewed with the Planning
    Department to assess the effects of development on transit service, and to encourage land
    development that is compatible with transit service. In addition, roadway modification plans along
    existing or planned transit service routes shall be reviewed by transit staff.

    Coordination Standard – On at least a quarterly basis, potential coordination opportunities with all
    other public transportation providers in the service area shall be reviewed to ensure convenient
    connections between services and to avoid unnecessary duplication of service.

    Marketing Standard – Marketing efforts shall be conducted to ensure that all service area residents
    are aware of ARTS services. Targeted marketing efforts shall be conducted for high-potential groups,
    including elderly, disabled, and low-income residents. Up-to-date schedules and route maps should be
    conveniently available to the public at all times. A minimum of 2 percent (and preferably 3 percent)
    of the total annual administrative budget should be expended on marketing efforts. Approximately 3.5
    percent of the administrative budget for FY 2006/07 was allocated to marketing efforts.

    Administrative Cost Standard – Administrative/dispatch costs should be 25 percent or less of total
    operating costs. During FY 2006/07, the administrative costs for ARTS totaled 23.8 percent of the
    total operating costs, thus meeting this standard.




Amador County                                                               LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                               Page 81
                                       This page left intentionally blank.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                   Amador County
Page 82                                                                      Transit Development Plan
                                                                                                   Chapter 6
                                                                          Service Alternatives
The basis for any transit plan is the development of an effective and appropriate service strategy. The
types of service provided, their schedules and routes, and the quality of service can effectively determine
the success or failure of a transit organization. Based on the service plan, capital requirements, and
funding requirements, the appropriate institutional and management strategies can be determined.

Following an examination of the existing conditions for transit service, the services currently provided,
and the potential transit demand, a number of service alternatives have been evaluated and are presented
in this chapter. The service alternatives are specifically intended to respond to perceived “gaps” in
service, such as targeted markets (Casino employees, visitors/tourists, etc.), or to address existing
inefficient services. Each service alternative is described, including operating characteristics, financial
characteristics, and capital requirements.

DEVIATED FIXED-ROUTE SERVICE ALTERNATIVES
Revisions to Route S

The Route S service area (including Jackson, Sutter Hill, and Sutter Creek) is the “urbanized” center of
Amador County and also the location of much of the planned near-term commercial development. In
particular, many important destinations are also being left out from service in the Jackson and Martell
areas, such as the Health and Human Services (HHS) Center. However, there are many limitations to the
existing Route S service, including the following:

    Service is currently operated at variable headways, ranging between 1 hour 5 minutes and 2 hours 15
    minutes, resulting in infrequent service. The resulting inconsistent schedule is difficult for passengers
    to remember, compared with service provided

    While the new Health and Human Services building is currently being served, it is not on the route
    map or schedule. By advertising and designating this as a scheduled stop, passengers and users of the
    ARTS system will be better served.

    In-vehicle travel times are long. Rather than staying along major roadways (as is typical in larger
    communities), the route provides very convenient service directly to the door of many destinations.
    While providing convenience to passengers at these individual stops (particularly those with mobility
    limitations), this results in long in-vehicle travel times. As an example, the trip from Sutter Hill to
    The Meadows Apartments in South Jackson requires the passenger to be on the bus for roughly 48
    minutes – at least four times the drive time on this 3.6 mile-long trip. As a result, the existing route is
    not attractive to passengers with any other available travel options.

As an alternative, two options with respect to Route S are discussed below. The first option is to revise
the existing route into a fixed-route service and implement a new service route. The second option is to
keep Route S as-is and implement a new service route.




Amador County                                                                  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                  Page 83
Option 1: Revise Route S and Implement a New Service Shuttle

Under this option, the existing Route S service area would instead be served by two routes: a new route
that would operate on a convenient hourly schedule designed to appeal to the general public rider, and a
revised Route S “service route” that would be designed to increase services for those needing a more
door-to-door service.

Deviated Fixed-Route Service Shuttle

The existing Sutter Creek/Jackson Shuttle (Route S) currently travels down the State Route (SR) 49 and
SR 88 corridors, serving many shopping centers such as Wal-Mart, K-Mart, and Raley’s, to name a few.
The need for a more service oriented route has been identified by ARTS, and as a result, a Jackson-
Martell-Sutter Creek service route has been developed as an alternative. The route would operate as a
deviated fixed-route (deviations would meet the ADA requirement of three-fourths of a mile) and would
provide direct service to the major shopping areas. The end result will be a highly specialized route that
runs every two hours.

Figure 19 illustrates the potential deviated service route. As shown, the route would begin at the Sutter
Hill Transit Center and stop at the following major service facilities:

    Medical clinics along Bryson Way in Sutter Hill

    ARTS and Independence High School on Academy Way

    Health and Human Services new location off Ridge Road

    Wal-Mart, K-Mart, and the Dollar Tree along SR 88 near Wicklow Way

    Argonaut High School and Hoffman Street

    Raley’s Shopping Center on SR 88/49

    Sutter Amador Hospital on Mission Road

    Medical clinics on Court Street

    Safeway shopping center on Industry Drive

The option of providing this service free of charge was explored, however there are many problems
associated with this. First, many residents may find this to be inequitable, as the ability to ride the service
for free would be based on the distance from your house or place of work to the route. A person that lives
one block from the route is not more “entitled” to free service than a person that lives one-half mile from
the route. Second, free fare for only one route in the system may result in confusion amongst passengers.
And lastly, by offering free fares, there is an increased opportunity for system abuse. Given this, it is
recommended that fares maintain consistency with all other ARTS routes. Transfers from other routes
would still be free for those passengers that take transit to this route, essentially providing a “free” trip on
this service for those coming to the service area by another route.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                               Amador County
Page 84                                                                                  Transit Development Plan
                                                                                    FIGURE 19
                                Sutter Creek - Jackson Fixed/Service Route Alternative
                                                      AT      POST OFFICE
                                                    FL
                                                R
                                              HE
                                           GOP



                                                       MA
                                                             SUTTER CREEK
                                                        IN
                                                  49     ST



                                                                                                                  104



                                             BRYSON DR

                                                      O O TE
                                                    OR M N
                                       S
                                  BOWER




                        ARC




                                                                                                           RD
                            D




                                                                                                         TE
                            R




                                                                                                       GA
                        E




                                                                                                     N
                        G




                                                                                                   SO
                    ID




                                                                                                 CK
                    R




                                                                                               JA

                                   HEALTH &         SAFEWAY
                                HUMAN SERVICES       CENTER

              104
                                                                                                                                           ROLLINGWOOD
                                                                                                                                             ESTATES
                                                                                        M IPOSA ST




                                                                  K-MART                                49
                                                                                                         88
                                                                                                                                                                  CH
                                                                                         AR




                                                                                                                                                            AN
                                                                                                                                                           RK R




                                     WAL-MART
                                                                                                                                                                   COURT ST.
                                                                                                                                                       NEW YO




                                                                                                                                                                    MEDICAL        88
                                                                        HIGH
                                                                                   TL




                                                                                                                                                                    OFFICES
                                                                       SCHOOL
                                                                              G NAU




                                                                                                                                                                                SUTTER
                                                                            AR O




                                                                                                                                                                               AMADOR
                                                                                                                               MA ST




                                                                                                                                                 T                             HOSPITAL
                                                                                                                                               TS
                                                                                                                                 IN




                                                                                                                          ST                 UR
                                                                                                                HOFFMAN                    CO


                                                                                                                                                                  JACKSON
                                                                                                                                            T

                                                                                                                  PETROVICH                                 BR
                                                                                                                    PARK
                                                                                                                                       N




                                                                                                                                                                  OA
                                                                                                                                                                       DW
                                                                                                                                                                         AY           L
                                                                                                          LEGEND                                                                    NP
                                                                                                                                                                                  TO
                                                                                                          URBAN AREA                                                            IN
                                                                                                                                                                              CL
                                                    SCALE                                                 STREETS
                                              0                 .3                                        HIGHWAYS                                    RD
AMADORFIXED




                                                                                                                                                  R
                                                                                                          FIXED ROUTE                           BA
                                                    IN MILES                                              SERVICE ROUTE                    CH                            49
                                                                                                                                         EN
         TRANSPORTATION
                                                                                                                                       FR     RALEY’S
         CONSULTANTS, INC.




Amador County                                                                                                                  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                                                                  Page 85
The new route would offer service to areas presently not served and that have a high demand. Many of
these new areas include County services, such as the new HHS building. According to Chapter 4, the
social service program-related transit demand is estimated to total 128,750 potential riders. Of these,
approximately 33 percent (42,760 passengers) would be associated with development or mental health
services.

Potential Fixed-Route

With the revision of the existing Route S Jackson/Sutter Creek Shuttle into the service route, a fixed-route
would also be implemented to provide a more direct hourly service. This will not only make the route
more efficient, but it will run on a more frequent schedule making the route more accessible to the general
public.

Figure 19 also shows the potential fixed-route. The bus will depart at the Sutter Hill Transit Center and
will travel into Sutter Creek, with the northernmost stop being the Post Office on Gopher Flat Road. After
this stop, the bus will travel south towards Martell and Jackson, serving the following areas:

    Bowers Lane to pick-up passengers with ARTS and Independence High School. Passengers will wait
    at a bus stop on the corner of Bowers Lane and Academy Way;

    The new Safeway shopping center on Industry Drive;

    In Martell, a stop will be located at the Wal-Mart on Wicklow Way only;

    The route will cross the highway and serve the Jackson Gate Road area on the way to downtown
    Jackson;

    In Jackson, the bus will serve the North Main Street corridor and Petkovich Park;

    After the leaving Petkovich Park, the bus will serve the New York Ranch Road area up to
    Rollingwood Estates, the medical clinics on Court Street and the Amador Sutter Hospital;

    The bus will make a loop through the Raley’s parking lot (State Route 49/88 and Clinton Road),
    which will be the final stop on the route in the southbound direction;

    The route will travel northbound in the same direction and will serve the same areas.

The route has been designed as a fixed-route with no deviations to maintain efficiency and ensure on-time
performance. To compensate for this, the previously discussed service route will provide deviations in
these areas. In order to provide hourly headways, one bus will operate 10 runs per day (run times
beginning at 8:00 AM through 5:00 PM). Each run would take approximately 1 hour, as opposed to the
current time of roughly 1 hour and 40 minutes. To better serve commuters, after school activities, and
visitors, service would be extended until 6:00 PM.

Each of the factors associated with the alternative was analyzed using an elasticity model. Additional
ridership would be generated by the following factors:

    By providing hourly headways, on a more easy to remember “clock headway” schedule

    By reducing in-vehicle travel time by roughly 50 percent


LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                            Amador County
Page 86                                                                               Transit Development Plan
    By extending service until 6:00 PM

    By providing service to new locations

Overall, this alternative is forecast to generate an additional 16,900 annual passenger-trips than the
existing Route S service.

Cost Impacts

Table 27 presents the cost impacts of this alternative. The two services would require 20,351 additional
vehicle-miles and 1,613 additional vehicle-hours per year. Applying the ARTS Cost Model (adjusted by
inflation to estimate FY 2008/09 costs), this additional service would increase overall costs by $86,600
per year. Subtracting $13,100 in increased passenger fares, this option would increase overall operating
subsidies by $73,500 per year.

Option 2: Maintain Route S “As-Is” and Implement a Service Shuttle

Another option for ARTS to consider would be to maintain the current Route S service area while
implementing the proposed Jackson – Martell – Sutter Creek Service Shuttle. Without altering the service
area, the two routes (Route S and the service route) would serve many of the same areas, thus duplicating
the route and not increasing service to the general public. The service route would increase the frequency
of service, but would only provide new service to the HHS building. Passengers would still face long
travel times (2 hours on the Service Shuttle and approximately 1 hour and 40 minutes on the fixed-route).

In order to operate this alternative, the cost of the new service shuttle would need to be considered, which
can be found in Table 27. As shown, costs would increase by $119,800, the total cost to implement and
operate the new Service Shuttle. These costs would be in addition to the operating costs of the existing
Route S. Given this cost impact and relatively little benefits of new service area, this alternative was not
considered any further.

Operate Earlier and Later Runs on Existing Route S

A more modest modification to Route S service would be to add to the existing limited span of service. A
shortcoming of the existing schedule is that the last run of the day runs from 4:00 PM to 5:35 PM, which
is not convenient for persons who work until 5:00 PM or the transit dependent passengers who may have
errands or appointments later in the day. This schedule requires passengers to shift their schedules to
earlier in the day in order to make the last bus.

To compensate for these issues, an additional morning run could be operated beginning at roughly
7:40AM and an evening run beginning at 5:00 PM. With these extra runs, it is estimated that an additional
3,500 passengers would ride Route S annually. Roughly 2,400 passengers would be from the morning
run, while 1,100 passengers would be from the evening run.

Route M Upcountry Express Service

One of the disadvantages associated with the Route M service is the long in-vehicle travel time. The
current schedule requires 50 minutes from Buckhorn to Sutter Hill and 40 minutes from Pioneer to Sutter
Hill. One option would be to provide an additional morning and afternoon run that makes a limited
number of stops (such as a single park-and-ride location in each community) and provide a travel time
closer to that of the private automobile in an attempt to attract a greater number of commuters.


Amador County                                                                LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                Page 87
Page 88
                                       TABLE 27: Amador County Service Alternatives
                                         FY 2008/09 Ridership and Cost Analysis
                                                                                                                                          Total Annual                Ridership Impact         Annual
                                                                                                                 Vehicles    Veh. Serv.    Veh. Serv.    Operating    (One-Way Trips)    Farebox    Subsidy
                                       Alternative                                                              Required 1     Miles         Hours        Cost2       Daily    Annual    Revenue    Required

                                       Status Quo
                                         Operating Costs                                                             9        300,871       14,346        $899,600      –     105,400    $143,000    $756,600




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                         Fixed Costs                                                                 –           –            –           $283,900      –        –          –           –
                                              Subtotal                                                               9        300,871       14,346       $1,183,500     –     105400     $143,000   $1,040,500

                                       LOCAL SERVICE ALTERNATIVES
                                         Jackson-Sutter Hill Fixed Route/Service Route Alternative                  2
                                           Fixed Route                                                              1          39,840        2,490       $142,800
                                           Jackson - Martell - Sutter Creek Service Route                           1          24,900        2,490       $126,600
                                              Existing Route S                                                      2         -44,389       -3,367       -$182,800
                                           Net Change                                                               0          20,351        1,613        $86,600      68      16,900    $13,100     $73,500

                                         Add an 8:00 A.M. Run on Route S                                             0         7,398         561          $30,500       10      2,400     $1,900      $28,600
                                         Add a 5:00 P.M. Run on Route S                                              0         6,723         249          $17,200        4      1,100      $900       $16,300
                                         Add an AM Express Run on Route M                                            1        13,197         456          $32,500        6      1,600     $1,300      $31,200
                                         Add a PM Express Run on Route M                                             1        13,197         456          $32,500        6      1,600     $1,300      $31,200
                                         Eliminate Route R                                                          -1        -16,629        -694         -$45,800     -13     -2,500    -$1,000     -$44,800
                                         Eliminate Route R2 Run                                                      0         -8,036        -343         -$22,400       0        0         $0       -$22,400
                                         Add 7:00 A.M. Run on Route I                                                1         5,976         311          $18,900        7      1,700     $1,300      $17,600
                                         Add 5:00 P.M. Run on Route I                                                1         5,976         311          $18,900        3      1,000      $800       $18,100
                                         Eliminate Route I2 Run                                                     -1         -5,976        -311         -$18,900      -4     -1,100     -$800      -$18,100

                                       STOCKTON COMMUTER
                                         Sutter Hill to Stockton Commuter Service                                    1        68,156         1,868       $148,500      17      4,200     $15,800    $132,700

                                       TAXICAB VOUCHER PROGRAM                                                       0          N/A           N/A         $25,000       –      1,300      $5,000     $20,000

                                       Note 1: Excluding spares, which can only be calculated for the system as a whole.
                                       Note 2: Based on ARTS FY06-07 cost model, factored up 3 percent annually.

                                       Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.




Transit Development Plan
          Amador County
It is estimated that the new morning and afternoon runs would only save approximately 10 minutes each,
thereby not providing a significantly greater service schedule. Further, based on existing ridership
numbers and an elasticity analysis of ridership versus in-vehicle travel time, it is estimated that there
would be an additional 1,600 passengers annually, or 6 passengers per day. This equates to a ridership
increase of 5.5 percent overall.

Another important factor to review is the cost of adding two new runs, as shown in Table 27. Due to the
low ridership associated with the additional runs, the total additional farebox revenue is anticipated to be
only $1,300 per run, or a total of $2,600. Operating costs would increase by $65,000 per year, resulting in
an additional operating subsidy requirement of $62,400.

Route M produces fairly low ridership as a whole and has high operating costs due to the vehicle service
hours and miles associated with the trips. The addition of two more runs is not particularly warranted, as
an insignificant increase in ridership would be generated, as well as low farebox ratios and high operating
costs added on to the already elevated existing costs. Based on this analysis, this alternative was not
explored in more detail.

As an aside, another possible schedule modification would be to provide a morning run in time to transfer
passengers to the Route X bus, allowing Upcountry residents to commute to employment in downtown
Sacramento. Transit research indicates that very few discretionary travelers will opt to use a local bus
(like Route M) to transfer to a commuter service (like Route X), unless parking is either unavailable or
costly at the transfer point (such as at a urban rail station without parking). This is borne out in the foothill
region by the very low proportion of riders on the El Dorado County Transit Authority’s Sacramento
Commuter services that are residents of Placerville or the “Upcountry” areas along U.S. 50 served by
local routes. The ridership on such as Route M service (which would have to depart Pine Grove around
6:00 AM and not return the tired commuter until around 7:30 PM) would be very low. This alternative
was therefore not considered further.

Eliminate Route R

Route R, which provides early morning and late morning service between Plymouth and Ione, requires a
substantial level of ARTS resources but only serves a very limited number of passengers. Based on the
most recent available information, this service (which operates only on state preschool school days) is
serving a total of approximately 2,532 one-way passenger-trips per year, or 13 on every day that service is
operated. This route is not attaining the recommended standards for passenger-trips per vehicle-hour, for
subsidy per passenger-trip, or for farebox return ratio. The service currently requires approximately $18 in
public subsidy for every one-way passenger-trip, or $36 for every round-trip.

One option would be to simply eliminate this service. As few passenger-trips could be accomplished on
other routes, this would eliminate the existing passenger-trips. However, it would free up roughly $44,800
in public funds that could potentially be used for another public transit service element.

Eliminate the Afternoon Route R Run

Another possible option for Route R would be to eliminate the afternoon Route R run (R2) and to revise
Route P and Route I to compensate for this loss of service. By reducing the Route R service and
transferring the ridership to Routes P and I, ARTS costs may be reduced and performance standards may
improve.




Amador County                                                                   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                   Page 89
Revisions to Route I

The first aspect of this alternative would be to revise the second run on Route I (I2). According to
ridership data, ridership is lowest on Route I2, with approximately 4 to 5 passengers per day or 1,137
passengers annually. Therefore, substantial ridership impacts are not anticipated.

The I2 run would be shifted back one hour, from 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM departure from Sutter Hill, and
return to Sutter Hill at approximately 11:55 AM. This shift would allow children to be picked up in Ione
at the Family Learning Center at the current pick-up time of 11:20 AM, and be dropped off in Sutter Hill
in time to transfer to a revised P2 run to get back to Plymouth.

Revisions to Route P

Secondly, this alternative would be to make a revision to the second run on Route P (the P2) run.
Currently, this run produces the lowest ridership of all of the three Route P runs (approximately 3 to 4
passengers per day, or 926 passengers annually), therefore indicating that there is not a substantial
demand for this time period between Jackson and Plymouth compared to the other runs. As a result, a
minor change in when the run begins will not substantially impact the route’s overall ridership.

This alternative shifts the current run 45 minutes later, leaving Sutter Hill at 11:55 AM and arriving in
Plymouth at approximately 12:08 PM. This would help to take the place of the late afternoon Route R2
run. Students that previously rode R2 from the Family Learning Center in Ione to Plymouth would be
able to take the revised I2 route (discussed below), which would leave Ione at 11:20 AM and connect
with the P2 bus in Sutter Hill at 11:55 AM to take them to Plymouth. The passengers would arrive in
Plymouth at 12:08 PM, approximately 30 minutes later than the current schedule.

Impacts of the Alternative

As shown in Table 27, the elimination of Route R2 would reduce ARTS operating costs by $22,400.
These funds could be used to help subsidize other transit services. A loss in ridership or farebox revenue
is not shown, since the revised P2 run would carry the passengers previously riding R2.

Add Morning and Evening Runs on Route I

The existing Route I schedule was developed to serve The Arc when it was located in Ione. As a result,
the first morning run does not arrive in Sutter Hill from Ione until 9:00 AM, and the last afternoon
westbound run departs Sutter Hill at 2:30 PM. This schedule limits the ability of Ione residents to access
the commercial and social service activity centers in the Sutter Hill/Jackson area, and effectively
precludes commuting by transit to this growing commercial center. As a result of identified needs for a
commuter-oriented service between Ione and Sutter Hill, one alternative would be to provide a morning
and evening run on Route I. Additionally, the need for a bus to serve high school students going from
Ione to Amador High School in Sutter Hill has been expressed. The potential alternative would address
the limitations of the existing Route I schedule.

The additional morning run would leave Sutter Hill at 7:00 AM, arrive in Ione at approximately 7:20 AM,
and return to the Sutter Hill transit center by 8:00 AM. This would serve both the commuters and the high
school students (school begins at 8:17 AM). The proposed evening run would begin in Sutter Hill at 5:00
PM, arriving in Ione at 5:20 PM and back at Sutter Hill by 6:00 PM.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                            Amador County
Page 90                                                                               Transit Development Plan
It is estimated that these additional runs would add approximately 2,700 passenger-trips, of which 1,700
would be from the morning run and 1,000 from the evening run. This increase in ridership would result in
additional farebox revenue of $2,100, based on the current average fare collected on the route. Operating
costs would increase the current costs by approximately $37,800, and the additional operating subsidy
required for these routes would be $35,700.

Eliminate I2 Run

Another option would be to eliminate the Route I2 run, which begins at 10:00 AM, as ridership on this
run is relatively poor (on the order of 4 passenger-trips per day). It is estimated that this half of the
existing ridership would shift to other routes. Considering that the eliminated ridership would also reduce
ridership on other runs (as passengers would not make round-trips), the overall impact would be a loss of
1,100 passenger-trips. This equates to a loss of $800 in farebox revenue, but would free up $18,100 that
would have otherwise been required to operate the run. The elimination of this run would provide
additional funds that could offset a portion of the subsidy required to operate the additional morning or
evening runs.

Elimination of Kirkwood Skier Service

ARTS began operation of the Kirkwood Ski Shuttle for the 2007/08 ski season, offering service on
Saturdays if a minimum of 12 tickets are purchased. To date, the actual ridership generated by this service
has been disappointing. One option would be to eliminate this service.

Because of the unique characteristics of this service, it is necessary to evaluate the marginal operating
costs in a different manner from the remainder of the ARTS system. The route operates for 12 hours per
day, including the wait time at the site, and the total mileage for the trip is 112 miles. The total estimated
marginal cost of the Kirkwood service is $472.53, based on the following cost equation:

    4 Hours in Service X ($37.73 X 1.03) +
       112 Miles in Service X ($1.02 X 1.03) +
           4 Driver Hours Not in Service X $15.46 X 1.29 +
                4 Overtime Driver Hours Not in Service X $15.46 X 1.5 X 1.29

Both the cost per mile ($1.02) and cost per hour ($37.73) were factored to reflect a 3 percent inflation
rate, as these original costs were obtained from FY 2006/07 data. Additionally, as shown, the driver is
paid for a total of 8 hours of “wait time” while the bus is not in service, 4 hours of which is paid at a time
and a half overtime rate. The “not in service” driver hours also incur fringe benefit costs, which are equal
to a rate of 29 percent.

Tickets for the service cost $10.00 each and in order for the service to operate, a minimum of 12
reservations must have been made. This minimum situation would equate to revenue of $120 per day,
resulting in a required operating subsidy per day of service of $352.53. The cost is elevated for ARTS due
to the fact that the driver is paid for their wait time while the bus is not in service. Similar services, such
as a service provided by Calaveras County to Bear Valley Ski Area, do not pay the driver salary costs,
which are instead paid by the ski area for the service. If this were to occur, ARTS operating costs would
total $273.10 and, at a maximum, the operating subsidy would equal $153.00 (assuming the minimum of
12 reservations).

The high costs of the service and lower than expected ridership have made the Kirkwood Ski Shuttle not
as financially successful as anticipated. However, it is important to note that this is the first year that the
service has been operated, and that new transit services typically do not reach their full ridership potential

Amador County                                                                  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                  Page 91
until the third year of service. Increased marketing efforts may increase ridership, producing a more
favorable ridership and revenue result. Given this, ARTS could operate the service during 2008/09 winter
ski season and monitor the progress on a weekly basis. Should the service continue to produce low
ridership, ARTS could consider eliminating the service in order to free up funds that could be used
towards other services. In evaluating this service, the number of actual passengers carried should be
considered rather than the number of tickets purchases, as the purpose of a public transit program is to
serve actual trips and as the fare revenue is a relatively small portion of the overall costs.

Expansion of Route Deviation Area from a Half Mile to Three-Quarters of a Mile from Routes

ARTS’ current policy for the deviated local routes is to provide service to locations (along paved public
roadways) within half a mile distance from the designated routes. As deviated routes, these services are
considered under the ADA to be “Demand Responsive” services, which do not require the provision of
complementary paratransit services (separate demand-response-only service). However, the ADA
requires that door-to-door service be provided within three-quarters of a mile of all designated stops, and
within three-quarters of a mile of any route allowing flag stops. To comply with the ADA, ARTS should
modify its policy to allow deviations of up to three-quarters of a mile for ADA eligible passengers. This
conclusion has been corroborated by several other consultants knowledgeable in ADA issues, including
the principal consultant for the Amador County Coordinated Public Transit – Human Services
Transportation Plan.

Note that this discussion does not apply to Route X, which as a commuter service is exempt from the
ADA three-quarters of a mile rule. This change in policy is not expected to have a noticeable impact on
overall ARTS operations, as the geography of the service area is such that a small proportion of the
population lives between a half mile and three-quarters of a mile from a route.

COMMUTER SERVICE ALTERNATIVES
Commuter Service to Stockton

Chapter 4 indicates that 4.5 percent of the overall demand would be for intercity service, a total of 13,820
trips. Currently, 9.5 percent of ARTS service (9,914 trips in 2007, or an average of 39 passenger trips per
day on three round trips) is operated as intercity service to Sacramento. The following is an analysis to
determine whether or not there is sufficient demand to warrant similar service to Stockton.

In examining the commuter flow in and out of Amador County, the 2000 U.S. Census data shows that 4.4
percent of employed residents commute into San Joaquin County (compared with 10.3 percent that
commute to Sacramento County). Likewise, only 2.4 percent of San Joaquin County residents commute
into Amador County, compared with 4.6 percent from Sacramento County. As shown in Table 24, the
projected demand for commuter transit service outside of Amador County, including commutes to San
Joaquin County and Sacramento County, is expected to increase by 11 percent in the short range (2008 to
2013) and 9 percent in the long range (2008 to 2030).

In addition to having a lower flow of traffic in and out of San Joaquin County, the incentives for using
transit to commute to Sacramento are much higher than for commuting to Stockton. Sacramento traffic is
congested, parking is difficult and expensive, and many employers, including the State of California and
Sacramento County, offer financial incentives for commuters. Also, employment is somewhat
concentrated in downtown Sacramento, making it easy for large numbers of commuters to walk to work
within a few blocks of the Capitol Mall. Stockton, in comparison, has a less concentrated employment



LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                            Amador County
Page 92                                                                               Transit Development Plan
hub, less traffic congestion, and cheaper and more abundant parking than Sacramento. All of these factors
combined indicate that commuter service between Amador County and Stockton would not be cost-
effective, and is thus unwarranted at this time.

Table 27 presents the estimated cost and ridership potential for this alternative, assuming an average fare
consistent with the existing Route X fares. It should be noted that an additional vehicle would be required
for this alternative. Below is a summary of the cost impacts:

    Annual vehicle service hours would total 1,875 hours, based on an estimated trip time of two and a
    half hours. Vehicle service miles would total 68,430 miles annually.

    Operating costs would total $148,500 when adjusted for inflation.

    A total of 4,220 riders, or 17 riders per day, are anticipated to use the commuter service, resulting in a
    farebox ratio of $15,800 annually.

    A subsidy of $132,700 would be required to operate this service.

Encourage Use of Foothill Rideshare

In addition to commuter bus service options funded by ARTS and the ACTC, there are existing vanpool
and rideshare programs available for commuters to these areas. Specifically, the Foothill Rideshare
program provides carpools and vanpools to Sacramento County and San Joaquin County during commute
hours. The program utilizes grant funding through Valley Clean Air Now and Caltrans for its operation.

While a San Joaquin commuter bus service may not be a financially feasible option for Amador County,
the rideshare program appears to be a more viable option for Amador County residents, as it is based
specifically on the demand for service to another area. For vanpools, interested riders register with the
program, identifying where they will be commuting to and whether they would like to be a driver, rider or
both. Once registered, Foothill Rideshare matches individuals based on common destinations, and the
vanpool begins. The program’s website will organize the vanpool and will also announce any empty
seats. Typical vanpool ridership averages 7 to 10 passengers per van. On average, the cost is
approximately $0.10 per mile, and vans are either leased (by Enterprise), private vans (owners rent out the
seats) or operated by employers.

Carpools are set up similarly, where a driver registers and announces the carpool. The drivers are then
able to access local matches and begin contacting potential passengers. There are two options for the cost
of carpooling. First, each passenger will take a turn driving for a week, paying for their own operating
costs. The other is to have a single driver who is reimbursed by each passenger for an equal share of the
operating costs.

There are many incentives to utilizing vanpools and carpools for commuting. In addition to reduced
congestion, there are substantial cost savings with respect to gas and car maintenance. Further, many
rideshare operators offer personal incentives to participants of the vanpools in order to encourage and
increase ridership. The following are some examples of incentives offered:

    San Joaquin County offers $150 per month for a year to drivers who start a new vanpool program,
    and for residents residing within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District boundaries, the
    agency offers a $350 subsidy for new vanpools for one year.



Amador County                                                                 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                 Page 93
    Contra Costa County offers a fare reduction of 50 percent for new rider’s first 3 months of service.

    Both Solano and Napa Counties offer $100 gas cards for two months to back-up drivers, and offer
    $100 gas cards per empty seat to drivers who start a new vanpool for the first month.

    San Mateo County offers new riders 50 percent off the fare for the first 3 months and $500 to drivers
    who start a new vanpool and keep it running for 6 months.

    Many programs offer a “guaranteed ride home” program that, in case of illness or a family
    emergency, provides a free taxicab or car rental for vanpool or carpool participants.

If funding is available, the ACTC and ARTS may want to explore working with the Foothill Rideshare
program to offer financial or other incentives for new and recurring riders. The above examples that offer
insight into what programs may work best. While most of these agencies are larger in size, the concepts
can be adapted to fit the needs and budget constraints of smaller agencies like those in Amador County. In
addition, partnerships with the Commute Connection in San Joaquin County and the Sacramento Region
Commuter Club may allow for expanded funding and incentive opportunities.

OTHER SERVICE ALTERNATIVES
Senior Transportation Co-Operative

Volunteer driver programs can be useful in serving rural areas where budgets will not allow all areas to be
served, or demand is so low and infrequent that regular service is not warranted. The biggest challenge in
providing a volunteer driver program is finding, training, and maintaining a volunteer base. Managing the
volunteers requires extensive oversight, which can be provided by a half-time transit agency
administrative position, or under the oversight of a volunteer board.

A number of rural areas in California have volunteer driver programs which illustrate the various types of
programs as well as “lessons learned.” These are described below.

Gold Country Telecare

Gold Country Telecare in Nevada County began in the 1970s as an all-volunteer transportation service.
Telecare’s program began as a volunteer service to offer various aid to seniors, but it was quickly realized
that transportation was the greatest need of those calling for assistance. Telecare recruited drivers to take
seniors to medical appointments. By the mid-1970s, the volunteer program was not enough to meet the
needs of residents, so a paid driver program was established. The paid program currently has 21 full- and
part-time drivers operating 21 vehicles, covering Western Nevada County, which has a population of
around 77,500. The paid program operates 2,100 hours per month serving 4,900 boardings (an average of
2.3 passenger trips per hour). However, because Telecare has a limited service area, it still maintains the
volunteer driver program. There have been as many as 12 volunteer drivers in recent years, but currently
there are six. Volunteer drivers are reimbursed at $0.40 per mile, and the client is charged $0.55 (the
$0.15 going towards administration particularly dispatching).

Virtually all of the trips provided by the volunteer program are for medical appointments, primarily in
Roseville or Sacramento (though some of the drivers will only go as far as Roseville, due to heavy
traffic). Previously, trip purpose was limited to medical appointments only, but when Telecare reduced its
service area, it opened up the volunteer program to all trip purposes. Nonetheless, despite the occasional
shopping trip to town, the primary use is still for medical trips.


LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                             Amador County
Page 94                                                                                Transit Development Plan
Telecare staff has not found that having a paid program impacts the willingness of residents to volunteer.
Where there is an unmet need (such as outside of the paid program service area), volunteers continue to
feel their service is worthy. However, other factors have impacted volunteerism. Specifically, one
volunteer is 86 years old, and two have declining health; that is half of the volunteers. Additionally,
volunteers have declined to continue when their insurance providers increased their premiums after
having identified them as “commercial drivers” because they are paid to drive (though many insurance
providers do not consider this a problem). Also, volunteers are facing increased liability costs, increased
maintenance costs, and increased fuel costs.

Community Resources Connection, Sonoma/Mendocino Coast

Community Resources Connection (CRC) started in 1999 as a telephone referral service for the South
Coast Seniors, Inc. in Gualala, California. CRC gave referrals to individuals seeking services in the
community, and offered a handy-person service – wherein volunteers would go to callers’ homes to do
minor repairs. The majority of phone calls were inquiries regarding transportation services, primarily for
medical appointments. Responding to this need, CRC organized a volunteer transportation program
offering free transportation to anyone in the region with an “essential need.”

Approximately 40 volunteer drivers who use their own private vehicles and gasoline provide the
transportation. In addition, the regional transit provider, Mendocino Transit Authority, leases a Dodge
Caravan to CRC for $1.00 per year, which is used for weekly trips to either Santa Rosa or Fort Bragg,
also using volunteer drivers. There are approximately eight volunteers who are qualified to drive the van.
Van drivers must be fingerprinted and trained.

CRC went from being part of the South Coast Seniors to receiving administrative oversight from
Redwood Coast Medical Services. In 2004, however, CRC became a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation.
CRC has 11 volunteer board members who meet on a monthly basis to handle normal board matters as
well as manage the organization’s administrative functions. In addition to board members, CRC has
volunteer committee chairs and members who are not on the board.

The Redwood Coast Medical Services (RCMS), the only local medical clinic in the region, provides for
the operating cost of the van (insurance, gasoline, and maintenance). The in-kind service by RCMS
includes office space, office expenses including a toll-free phone number and insurance, maintenance and
gasoline for the van. Approximately 60 RCMS clients use the van service annually.

In addition to costs covered by the RCMS, the projected cash outlay for 2005 was approximately $5,000.
This covered the cost for the Directors and Officers and General Liability Insurance, as well as office
supplies and an annual volunteer appreciation dinner. Cash contributions are received from clients, the
general public, and board members.

CRC provides approximately 1,100 one-way passenger trips annually: 760 local (less than 20 miles
round trip) and 240 to Fort Bragg or Santa Rosa (110 to 170 miles round trip). Passengers call CRC
Monday through Friday between noon and 4:00 PM to schedule trips, with 48-hour advance notice
required. Most of the trips are for medical or dental appointments, or for other errands for daily living,
including grocery shopping. Phone volunteers who arrange the trips encourage the passenger to make
efficient use of the service by completing several errands in one trip rather than scheduling trips on
multiple days.

In total, CRC volunteers donate over 3,150 hours per year, driving more than 26,200 miles in their
personal vehicles and another 6,500 miles in the van.


Amador County                                                                 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                 Page 95
Tehama County Medical Transportation Services (METS)

Tehama County has a volunteer driver program to provide medical transportation. The 23-year- old
program is under direction of the Transit Manager (Department of Public Works), with a supervisor
working part time Monday through Wednesday to oversee daily operations. The supervisor is paid $9.34
hourly without benefits and has an annual maximum of 1,000 hours.

METS currently has 12 volunteer drivers. Drivers use their personal vehicles and are reimbursed at the
federal IRS rate (currently $0.485 per mile). Drivers are recruited by word-of-mouth. Ten-year DMV
records are required, but fingerprinting is not. As of this year, drivers are covered by Workman’s
Compensation Insurance.

The Supervisor coordinates appointments and assigns trips to drivers. This employee is also responsible
for recruiting volunteers, record-keeping and reimbursing drivers. Efforts are made to assign drivers who
live closest to the passenger in need for greatest efficiency.

Clients are asked for a $5.00 round trip donation within Tehama County or $10.00 round trip donation to
Butte, Glen, or Shasta Counties. An estimated 80 to 90 percent of clients pay this donation. METS
receives $0.14 per mile reimbursement from the American Cancer Society for passengers seeking cancer
treatment. There are 150 regular clients. The program provides between 60,000 to 90,000 reimbursed
vehicle miles each year. While the program is for medical trips only, clients may do shopping in
conjunction with picking up prescriptions, at the driver’s discretion. Clients must be ambulatory to use the
service. Spouses or attendants may accompany the passenger if desired. Most of the clients are elderly,
though some children and other adults use the service as well.

Lessons Learned

The review of volunteer transportation programs in similar Northern California communities indicates the
following:

    Volunteer driver programs typically start out from a grass roots effort based on an identified need.

    Overseeing the volunteers requires a dedicated individual, likely a paid employee. In CRC’s case, the
    program is overseen by a board with the rotating chairman overseeing day-to-day operations. Over 40
    volunteers keep the CRC program running.

    Some volunteer programs provide reimbursements, and some do not.

    The biggest challenge is to recruit and maintain volunteers. The volunteers want to feel they are
    providing a worthwhile service. Turnover is high due to burnout or declining ability.

    Volunteers are more difficult to recruit as gas prices and auto insurance costs increase.

    Grant funding can be obtained to offset costs of reimbursed driver volunteer programs. Using such
    grants may limit trip purpose and client eligibility.

Establishing a Volunteer Driver Program in Amador County

To establish a volunteer driver program, the first step would be to determine who would oversee the
program. As the transit service agency, ARTS would be a likely candidate. Tehama County’s METS


LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                             Amador County
Page 96                                                                                Transit Development Plan
program and Gold Country Telecare provide good models for this set up. Operating under ARTS would
require a half-time administrative position to recruit and train volunteers, market the program, oversee
volunteer dispatching efforts, and for record-keeping. Without benefits, this position is likely to cost
approximately $10,000 annually. Another option would be to incorporate a project coordinator into the
budget for ARTS that, among other projects, would coordinate the volunteer program by providing the
above mentioned duties.

Another potential candidate to initiate the program is the Amador County Senior Center. Senior citizens
are often both the volunteers and clients of volunteer driver programs, and association with the Senior
Center might increase recruiting efforts. However, seniors may experience declining health and frailty,
making turnover high and retaining volunteers difficult, as seen through Telecare’s experience. According
to Telecare, however, it was not a problem for volunteers to see the need for their services even when a
paid program is available. The volunteers understand that the County cannot pay to provide service to all
portions of the County at all times, and therefore volunteers are willing to step in to provide the odd
needed transport from a place such as Wendel into Susanville, or even to Reno.

Transportation Reimbursement Program

The Transportation Reimbursement Program (TRP) is a service planned for Amador County residents that
are unable to transport themselves due to the lack of a personal vehicle, are unable to drive as a result of a
medical condition or advanced age, or are in the low-income category (200 percent of poverty level) and
cannot afford fuel. Participation and transportation needs must be associated with at least one hour of
work per day. This program has been developed as a result of unmet transit needs that were deemed
reasonable to meet by the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) in January 2008.

Based on a similar program offered in Trinity County, the TRP is a demonstration program for a total of
one year, beginning in FY 2008/09 or sooner, with service beginning on July 1, 2008. SSTAC has
requested a total of $20,000 for the pilot program, which includes up-front administrative costs and
working capital, and the remaining for program reimbursements. Any reimbursement funds that are not
spent will go back into the program unless the budget is increased the following year.

Qualified participants (residents who meet the criteria discussed above) will be provided with gas
vouchers from ARTS based on mileage estimates. ARTS will cover the costs of transportation incurred
by the provider and will be reimbursed by the ACTC upon submittal of the claims. Claims will be
reviewed on a monthly basis within the TRP program and will be submitted to the ACTC for
reimbursement quarterly. In order to continue the program after the trial year, ARTS will need to
effectively market the program and build up the client base to deem the program successful.

Implementation of the program will depend on ARTS funding availability. While funds were requested,
the program was not included in the FY 2008/09 ARTS budget and therefore cannot be administered.
Further related to funding, implementation will also depend on the capacity of ARTS staff time for
program coordination. It is likely that a new staff position, either directly with ARTS or with the ACTC,
would need to be developed that would coordinate and oversee the program. In turn, this would require
additional funding.

Reserve-A-Ride Taxicab Subsidy Program

In rural areas and small communities, transit route service is an inefficient way to serve transportation
needs in evenings and weekends when demand is relatively low. Instead, using taxicab operators can
provide needed mobility in a much more efficient manner.


Amador County                                                                 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                 Page 97
In larger communities, a formal “voucher” or “coupon” program is typically implemented, whereby
passengers pre-purchase a voucher or coupon directly from the program management (in this case
ARTS). These programs are discussed in the “Amador County Subsidized Taxicab Program”
memorandum provided to ARTS by LSC dated November 9, 2004. However, this places a substantial
barrier to use of the program by a potential passenger (particularly a passenger not part of a social service
program), and also requires that the specific fare be identified prior to the trip. In an area as extensive as
western Amador County, it is probably not feasible to identify a set fare (and cost) per trip. While other
such programs have developed detailed zone systems with specified fares per zone, this can be
cumbersome to administer. Establishing fares based on a proportion of the meter fare is appropriate, so
long as adequate steps are taken to avoid the potential for misuse.

A draft contract has been developed between ACTC and Blue Mountain Transit to initiate this service.
This contract defines some of the parameters of the program:

    Service will be provided on one weeknight and one Saturday night per week. Weeknight service will
    operate during non-ARTS hours.

    Trips will be served that both start and end within the western portion of Amador County, defined as
    everywhere west of the U.S.FS Ranger Station at Mace Meadows.

    Passengers would make advance reservations 24-hours in advance, though a flexible return time
    would be allowed for trips that cannot be definitely scheduled, such as medical appointments.

Many of the details, however, are planned to be addressed in an attachment to this contract, which has yet
to be prepared. LSC’s suggestions regarding the contract are as follows:

    The contract should be made between ARTS and the service provider, rather than between ACTC and
    the service provider. ARTS, as the CTSA for the region, is better able to manage the program and
    ensure that it is best coordinated with other public transportation services. Funding for this program
    would then be the subject of an allocation to ARTS and ACTC. In other areas with a taxi subsidy
    program, it is the transit operator rather than the regional transportation planning agency that
    administers the program.

    The contract needs to define how passenger fares are to be set. ARTS must have the ability to answer
    passenger questions as to what their fare will be. The contract must also ensure that fares are
    sufficient to meet a 10 percent farebox return ratio.

    It is essential that the program provide mechanisms to avoid even the potential for fraud, in order to
    guarantee to the public that their funding is being used appropriately. Other programs accomplish this
    through a requirement that passengers pre-purchase a coupon or voucher in advance of a trip, thereby
    avoiding any exchange of money directly between the passenger and the driver. To date, discussions
    with the SSTAC and the provider have indicated the desire to avoid this additional step. However,
    additional steps need to be established to provide a reasonable level of ability to track services and
    funds in order to minimize the potential for fraud:

    −    Passengers should be required to register for the program. While all will be allowed to register,
         information should be required on the passenger’s name, address, phone number, disability status,
         age, and whether an attendant is required.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                              Amador County
Page 98                                                                                 Transit Development Plan
    −    The driver should be required to fill out a form (provided by ARTS) that details the following for
         each trip:

         <   Passenger pick-up location
         <   Schedule passenger pick-up time and date
         <   Actual passenger pick-up time
         <   Number of passengers
         <   Passenger drop-off location
         <   Passenger drop-off time
         <   Fare collected from passenger
         <   Signature of the passenger

    −    On a monthly basis, ARTS staff should make random calls to passengers recorded on the trip
         logs, in order to (1) ensure that trips were actually taken by the person indicated and to (2)
         identify if there are any service quality issues that should be addressed. Calls should also be made
         on a random basis to trip destinations (such as medical offices) to ensure that trips were actually
         made.

    As the contractor is to be paid the difference between the actual cost of service (at a defined cost per
    hour) and the passenger fares, ARTS will need documentation of the actual hours expended in
    Reserve-A-Ride service. For each day that a vehicle is used for the service, a log should be required
    identifying each time that the vehicle begins Reserve-A-Ride service, each time it is no longer in
    service, as well as the location where Reserve-A-Ride service begins and ends. As an individual
    vehicle can alternate between Reserve-A-Ride and other services, defining the beginning or end of
    such service is necessary. For instance, if the vehicle is not already in service, the service beginning
    and end time can be defined as the departure and return at the operating base. If already in service, the
    start time could be defined when the driver heads to the Reserve-A-Ride pick-up. If the driver will
    remain in the service area while waiting for a subsequent non-Reserve-A-Ride passenger, the service
    time could end when the Reserve-A-Ride passenger is dropped off. For time periods of an hour or
    less spent in the service area between two Reserve-A-Ride trips, the contractor could possibly remain
    “on the clock.”

    Passengers should be required to make advance reservations 24-hours in advance, though a flexible
    return time should be allowed for trips that cannot be definitely scheduled, such as medical
    appointments. While this can be a bit of a burden to passengers, it allows the service provider more
    opportunity to group trips, and thereby increase the overall efficiency of the program.

Ridership and Cost Estimates

The potential ridership on this service can be evaluated based upon the observed usage levels in similar
areas. For example, Colusa County has a taxi voucher program that it established in 1983. In FY 2001/02,
the taxi company provided 8,633 general public passenger trips (operated evenings and Saturdays, with
just one vehicle). Vehicle service hours totaled 4,223. Five years earlier in FY 1998, Colusa Cab had two
vehicles in operation and provided 8,632 vehicle hours of service, and ridership was 20,323. Given the
relative populations and service area characteristics, this indicates that a reasonable ridership rate for
Amador County would be 1.5 passengers per service hour. Factored by the effective potential hours of
service this rate indicates that there is a potential ridership of an estimated 5,900 annual one-way
passenger-trips.



Amador County                                                                LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                Page 99
The actual ridership that would be served by the program will depend on many factors, including the
available subsidy funding, the fare levels, the pattern of use by time of day and day of week, and the
ability of the contractor to group trips. Assuming an annual subsidy budget of $20,000 and that the
passengers pay 20 percent of the total cost, the total funds for this service will be $25,000. ARTS and
Blue Mountain Transit have negotiated an hourly rate of $56.16, which indicates that the program will be
able to fund 445 vehicle-hours of service per year. A reasonable estimate, given the size of the area and
the potential to group trips, is that 3 passenger-trips can be served for every billed hour of service.
Dividing the vehicle-hours by the passenger-trips per hour, the program is estimated to serve roughly
1,300 passenger-trips per year. As this figure is only 23 percent of the potential demand, at this funding
level the program ridership would clearly be constrained by the available budget rather than the potential
demand.

The advantages of this alternative are that existing transportation services are supported, that existing
needs are at least partially met, and that the subsidy is expended only when service is being provided. It
also provides a great deal of flexibility, as the program can be adjusted over time to reflect changes in
demand and funding levels, and is substantially less expensive than direct ARTS service. The program
will require administrative time to set up the program (develop agreements with service providers, market
the program, work with social service agencies, etc.) and will also need to be closely monitored to
determine its efficiency and value in meeting unmet demand. Overall, however, this program remains a
valid element of a comprehensive transportation program for Amador County.

Social Services Mobile Program Transportation

Amador County’s topography and presence of small, outlying communities presents mobility issues for
seniors, the disabled and low-income residents. Lack of adequate transit to these areas makes it difficult
for residents to make trips to social services programs, as well as day to day activities (supermarket,
pharmacy, etc.). Further, reduced funding and budget cuts have made it harder for the social service
organizations to provide client transportation to their programs. Interest has been expressed by residents
and agencies in a delivery system for prescriptions, meals, mail/packages, and library books utilizing the
ARTS fixed-route bus system. This program would be a way for residents to have access to such program
components and activities that would otherwise be difficult due to lack of a vehicle or inability to drive.

Package delivery programs have proven to be successful in small rural areas and, based on the specific
needs of a community, can become a vital component of the overall transit system. Trinity County
established a good delivery program in the 1980’s, which is still being operated today, and is
administered through the local transit program. Because the County’s towns are many miles apart, it is
difficult for transportation disadvantaged residents to make daily errands and shopping trips. Residents
call the business directly, who then contacts the transit agency pick-up arrangements. Package/goods
pick-up is coordinated with a fixed-route bus and delivered to specified drop-off locations, rather than
door to door service. According to the transit agency, this program has been very successful and
frequently carries more packages and goods than passengers.

Delivery Program in Amador County

Based on identified needs in the Upcountry area, Route M would be ideal for a pilot program. The
Upcountry residents have expressed concern with the ability to attend programs, as transit is somewhat
inaccessible due to limited or no service in some areas, as well as a high concentration of seniors who
may be unable to drive a vehicle. A delivery program in this area would provide cost savings for the
residents (i.e. reduced fuel consumption), as well as the program providers who will no longer be required
to coordinate and pay for transportation operating costs. Upon proven success of the program, it could be
implemented in other areas along other routes.

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                           Amador County
Page 100                                                                             Transit Development Plan
The program could be set up with two communication options. With the first option, residents would
communicate directly to the businesses or social service program, who would in turn inform ARTS of a
package that is ready for pick-up. At ARTS, the dispatcher would determine the best run to use and would
inform the drivers with the orders accordingly. Under Option 2, residents would communicate with a
program coordinator at ARTS, who would then coordinate the orders, pick-up and delivery specifics. For
most situations, residents should place orders 24 hours in advance to ensure proper communication. Some
services, such as lunch or meal programs, could be designed as subscription services with the provider
(Senior Center, food bank, etc.) where meals or other goods are delivered on a regular basis and would
not need advanced orders.

ARTS would also need to determine whether or not the buses would deviate from the fixed-route to
specific residences, or if there would be a generalized drop-off location. While door to door service would
be ideal, the provision of such a service would be dependent upon demand. Because the program would
be operated through in-service buses on existing routes, on-time performance may be affected when there
is a high amount of requests for service. In such cases, it is important to remember that there are
passengers who are dependent upon the transit system and rely on on-time service for work and other
activities. A preferable option would be to have drop-off locations in each neighborhood in centralized
and easily accessible locations. For residents who are completely unable to leave their residences without
assistance, local non-profit organizations (i.e. churches) could be involved to complete the package
delivery to those residents with volunteer drivers.

In order to cover some of the costs for the service, ARTS would charge the clients a small fee. This could
be set up as a fixed cost depending on the type of good delivered. Any fee charged would be significantly
less than the actual fuel costs associated with the trip, as well as the cost of time and potential
inconvenience that would have been involved with making trip. Because the service would utilize existing
in-service buses that would be operating regardless, little to no capital costs will be involved on the ARTS
side of the operation.

The fees collected from clients would go towards the funding of the program, however the fees cannot be
“counted” when calculating the TDA farebox return ratio. Another potential funding source could be from
private businesses that would like to be involved in the program. Local grocery stores and hardware
stores, for example, that would like the option of having orders placed could pay a participation fee to
ARTS. Overall, operating costs associated with such a program would be nominal compared to the
general costs of operating the ARTS system.

One of the most important components of this program would be the coordination and communication
between ARTS and the participating businesses and agencies. Ideally, all packages for delivery on each
run should be organized in advance and at locations that do not deviate significantly from the existing
route. If a package pick-up location is not along the existing route service area, arrangements should be
made for the driver to pick-up any packages prior to the beginning of the route. This would help to ensure
on-time performance and reduce complications while the bus is in service.

In summary, this program could be a valuable service to the residents in Amador County. Not only would
a higher level of convenience be provided to transportation disadvantaged residents, vital local social
services programs would not be compromised due to the inability to provide their own transportation
service. It is important, however, that this program be operated in such a way as to not significantly
degrade passenger transportation services, or require additional resources that could otherwise be used for
passenger transportation.




Amador County                                                               LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                              Page 101
COMPARISON OF SHORT-RANGE SERVICE ALTERNATIVES
This section presents a comparison of the various alternatives discussed above, as measured by a series of
performance indicators. Note that the FY 2008/09 cost figures for ARTS are based on FY 2006/07 actual
costs increased 3 percent annually to account for inflation.

Table 28 presents a series of “performance indicators” for the various ARTS service alternatives
discussed above. The ridership impact of the various alternatives, as measured in marginal annual one-
way passenger-trips, is also presented in Figure 20. As presented, the Jackson – Sutter Hill Fixed-
route/Service Route has the greatest potential to increase ridership, at 16,900 annual one-way passenger-
trips per year, followed by the Stockton Commuter service at 4,200 annual one-way passenger-trips. On
the other extreme, eliminating Route R would reduce ridership by approximately 2,500 passenger-trips
per year. The range of ridership impact across the alternatives is quite wide, and other factors must be
considered along with the measure before deciding which alternatives are the most advantageous.

Figure 21 presents a graphic depicting the impact of each alternative on ARTS annual operating subsidy.
As shown, the most expensive option would be the commuter service to Stockton, at $132,700 per year,
followed by the Jackson - Sutter Hill Fixed-route/Service Route alternative at $73,500. On the other hand,
eliminating Route R would save on the order of $44,800 per year.

The operating effectiveness of the alternatives, measured in terms of marginal one-way passenger-trips
per vehicle service hour, is depicted in Figure 22. As a comparison, the Status Quo service is anticipated
to provide 7.3 one-way passenger-trips per vehicle service hour. The Jackson – Sutter Hill Fixed-
route/Service Route (10.5) would generate the greatest marginal passenger-trips per vehicle service hour,
followed by the addition of a 7:00 AM run on Route I (5.5). The Stockton Commuter service would
achieve the lowest productivity (2.2), followed by the addition of a 5:00 PM run on Route I (3.2). On the
other hand, eliminating Route R would reduce ridership by 3.6 passenger-trips for every vehicle-hour of
service eliminated. Comparing these figures with the recommended standard, the only expansion
alternative that would attain the recommended standard would be the Jackson – Sutter Hill Fixed-
route/Service Route alternative, while both the elimination of Route R and the I2 run would be consistent
with the standard in that they would not reduce ridership in excess of the standard for every hour of
service eliminated.

Another key performance measure is the operating subsidy per one-way vehicle trip, as presented in
Figure 23 for the various alternatives/options. This “performance indicator” is probably the single best
means of measuring transit alternatives, as it directly relates the “goal” of public transportation (to
provide passenger-trips) to the basic resource required (public dollars). The Jackson – Sutter Hill Fixed-
route/Service Route alternative would achieve a relatively low net subsidy per marginal one-way
passenger-trip ($4.35). The Stockton Commuter service alternative would generate the highest marginal
subsidy per passenger-trip at $31.60. As with the ridership impact, the subsidy per passenger-trip varied
greatly and produced a wide range of impacts. Comparing these figures with the recommended standards,
both the Jackson – Sutter Hill Fixed-route/Service Route alternative and the 7:00 AM Route I run would
meet the standard. In addition, the elimination of Route R and the I2 run would both be consistent with
the standard, as the subsidy saved for every passenger-trip eliminated would exceed the standard.

Finally, Figure 24 presents the anticipated operating farebox recovery ratio by alternative/option. The
Taxicab Voucher Program is anticipated to generate the highest marginal farebox ratio at 20 percent,
followed by the Jackson – Sutter Hill Fixed-route/Service Route alternative (15 percent). Not far behind is
the Stockton Commuter service alternative with an 11 percent farebox return ratio, the addition of a 7:00



LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                           Amador County
Page 102                                                                             Transit Development Plan
Amador County
                                       TABLE 28: Amador County Transit Service Alternatives Performance Analysis




Transit Development Plan
                                         FY 2008/09 Ridership and Cost Analysis
                                                                                                                                             Performance Measure
                                                                                                                         Marginal     Marginal       Marginal     Marginal     Marginal
                                                                                          Marginal Change in Annual     Passengers   Passengers     Cost Per     Subsidy Per   Farebox
                                       Alternative                                       Passenger-Trips    Subsidy      Per VSH      Per VSM       Pagr-Trip     Pagr-Trip     Ratio

                                       Existing Service                                     105,400        $1,040,500      7.3          0.4          $11.23         $9.87       12%

                                       Recommended Standard
                                         Local Service                                         --              --          6.0           --            --          $10.50        5%
                                         Commuter Service                                      --              --          3.0           --            --          $18.00        8%

                                       LOCAL SERVICE ALTERNATIVES
                                         Jackson-Sutter Hill Fixed Route/Service Route       16,900         $73,500        10.5         0.8           $5.12         $4.35       15%
                                         Add an 8:00 AM Run on Route S                       2,400          $28,600        4.3          0.3          $12.71        $11.92        6%
                                         Add a 5:00 PM. Run on Route S                       1,100          $16,300        4.4          0.2          $15.64        $14.82        5%
                                         Add an AM Express Run on Route M                    1,600          $31,200        3.5          0.1          $20.31        $19.50        4%
                                         Add a PM Express Run on Route M                     1,600          $31,200        3.5          0.1          $20.31        $19.50        4%
                                         Eliminate Route R                                   -2,500         -$44,800       3.6          0.2          $18.32        $17.92        2%
                                         Eliminate Route R2 Run                                0            -$22,400       0.0          0.0            --             --          --
                                         Add 7:00 AM Run on Route I                          1,700          $17,600        5.5          0.3          $11.12        $10.35        7%
                                         Add 5:00 PM. Run on Route I                         1,000          $18,100        3.2          0.2          $18.90        $18.10        4%
                                         Eliminate Route I2 Run                              -1,100         -$18,100       3.5          0.2          $17.18        $16.45        4%
                                       STOCKTON COMMUTER                                     4,200         $132,700        2.2          0.1          $35.36        $31.60       11%

                                       TAXICAB VOUCHER PROGRAM                               1,300          $20,000         --           --          $19.23        $15.38       20%

                                       Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                          Page 103
Page 104
                                                                           FIGURE 20: Annual Ridership Change by Alternative


                                                                                                         Change in Annual Passenger-Trips
                                                                                          -5,000   0         5,000             10,000       15,000   20,000

                                                     Jackson-Sutter Hill Fixed Rt/Service Rt




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                                                      Add 8:00 AM Route S

                                                                      Add 5:00 PM Route S

                                                                  Add Route M AM Express

                                                                 Add Route M PM Express

                                                                         Eliminate Route R

                                                                    Eliminate Route R2 Run

                                                               Add 7:00 AM Run on Route I




                                       Alternative
                                                               Add 5:00 PM Run on Route I

                                                                    Eliminate Route I2 Run




                                                                       Stockton Commuter




                                                                 Taxicab Voucher Program




Transit Development Plan
          Amador County
                                                                    FIGURE 21: Annual Operating Subsidy Change by Alternative




Amador County
                                                                                                                               Change in Annual Operating Subsidy




Transit Development Plan
                                                                                         -$60,000   -$40,000   -$20,000   $0   $20,000   $40,000   $60,000   $80,000   $100,000   $120,000   $140,000   $160,000

                                                     Jackson-Sutter Hill Fixed Rt/Service Rt

                                                                      Add 8:00 AM Route S

                                                                      Add 5:00 PM Route S

                                                                  Add Route M AM Express

                                                                 Add Route M PM Express

                                                                         Eliminate Route R

                                                                    Eliminate Route R2 Run

                                                               Add 7:00 AM Run on Route I




                                       Alternative
                                                               Add 5:00 PM Run on Route I

                                                                    Eliminate Route I2 Run




                                                                       Stockton Commuter




                                                                 Taxicab Voucher Program




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                          Page 105
Page 106
                                                                                      FIGURE 22: Operating Subsidy Per Passenger Trip

                                                                                                                           Subsidy per Passenger-Trip
                                                                                               $0     $5         $10            $15          $20        $25       $30    $35

                                                     Jackson-Sutter Hill Fixed Rt/Service Rt




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                                                      Add 8:00 AM Route S

                                                                      Add 5:00 PM Route S

                                                                  Add Route M AM Express

                                                                 Add Route M PM Express

                                                                         Eliminate Route R

                                                                    Eliminate Route R2 Run

                                                               Add 7:00 AM Run on Route I




                                       Alternative
                                                               Add 5:00 PM Run on Route I

                                                                    Eliminate Route I2 Run




                                                                       Stockton Commuter




                                                                 Taxicab Voucher Program



                                                                                        Increases in Subsidy & Ridership              Decreases in Subsidy & Ridership




Transit Development Plan
          Amador County
                                                                          FIGURE 23: Passenger Trips Per Vehicle Service Hour




Amador County
                                                                                                                 Passenger-Trips per Vehicle Service Hour




Transit Development Plan
                                                                                            0.0     2.0           4.0              6.0               8.0    10.0   12.0

                                                     Jackson-Sutter Hill Fixed Rt/Service
                                                                     Rt

                                                                   Add 8:00 AM Route S


                                                                   Add 5:00 PM Route S


                                                               Add Route M AM Express


                                                              Add Route M PM Express


                                                                      Eliminate Route R


                                                                 Eliminate Route R2 Run




                                       Alternative
                                                            Add 7:00 AM Run on Route I


                                                            Add 5:00 PM Run on Route I


                                                                  Eliminate Route I2 Run




                                                                    Stockton Commuter



                                                                                      Increases in Ridership & Hours           Decreases in Ridership & Hours




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                          Page 107
Page 108
                                                                                                FIGURE 24: Alternative Farebox Return Ratio

                                                                                                                                    Farebox Return
                                                                                               0%              5%             10%                    15%      20%   25%

                                                     Jackson-Sutter Hill Fixed Rt/Service Rt




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                                                      Add 8:00 AM Route S

                                                                      Add 5:00 PM Route S

                                                                  Add Route M AM Express

                                                                 Add Route M PM Express

                                                                         Eliminate Route R

                                                                    Eliminate Route R2 Run

                                                               Add 7:00 AM Run on Route I




                                       Alternative
                                                               Add 5:00 PM. Run on Route I

                                                                    Eliminate Route I2 Run




                                                                       Stockton Commuter




                                                                 Taxicab Voucher Program



                                                                                                    Increases in Fares and Costs    Decreases in Fares and Costs




Transit Development Plan
          Amador County
AM run on Route I (7 percent) and the addition of an 8:00 AM run on Route S (6 percent). The remaining
alternatives were all below the 5 percent performance standard minimum, with the exception of the 5:00
PM run on Route S (5 percent).

Summary

The analysis presented in this chapter identifies a few strong alternative candidates for ARTS’
consideration (depending upon funding availability). Specifically, the Jackson – Sutter Hill Fixed-
route/Service Route alternative would meet all of the performance measure standards, and would generate
a substantial amount of new passenger-trips. Should funding become available to ARTS and the ACTC, it
may be worthwhile to consider implementing this service, as it has the most potential for positive impacts
to the system.

Another alternative worth exploring further may be the implementation of a 7:00 AM run on Route I.
Despite somewhat of a small annual change in passenger trips, this alternative meets performance
standards for both farebox ratio and subsidy per passenger trip. Further, the marginal cost per passenger
trip is just below the existing service and the passengers per vehicle service hours (5.5) falls just short of
the 6.0 standard. All of these factors indicate that given time, this service could prove to be a successful
addition to Route I. Further, should the alternative suggesting the elimination of the Route I2 run be
implemented, there would be additional funds saved that could offset the cost of the new run.

The high farebox return ratio of 20 percent and the need for after hours transit service identified during
unmet needs hearings makes the Taxicab Voucher Program a potentially attractive alternative. While the
subsidy per passenger trip is slightly higher than the performance standard maximum, the total subsidy
required is not significantly high and could be obtained by grants and other funding sources.

While the Stockton Commuter service is anticipated to generate a fairly good farebox return ratio of 11
percent, the alternative does not meet any of the other performance standards. In particular, the subsidy
per passenger trip would be nearly 43 percent higher than the performance standard maximum as a result
of low ridership potential. Given the high costs associated with this alternative and potential funding
problem, this may not be a viable alternative for ARTS. Finally, this performance analysis clearly reflects
the poor performance of Route R.




Amador County                                                                  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                 Page 109
                                       This page left intentionally blank.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                   Amador County
Page 110                                                                     Transit Development Plan
                                                                                                  Chapter 7
                                                                         Capital Alternatives
Before transit services can be provided, a myriad of capital items are required. The capital items required
for public transit service consist of vehicles, vehicle maintenance facilities, passenger amenities such as
shelters, benches, and computer equipment. Indeed, many capital elements will be required to maintain
and potentially expand ARTS services over the coming years, as discussed below.

VEHICLE ALTERNATIVES
The size and types of vehicles in the ARTS fleet are presented in Chapter 3. In summary, ARTS currently
has a fleet of 12 revenue vehicles and 2 non-revenue vehicles. Depending on the ultimate selection of the
service alternatives presented in the previous chapter, a Capital Plan will be presented that will identify an
appropriate vehicle acquisition schedule for each entity.

In FY 2007/08 dollars, buses appropriate for ARTS commuter services cost approximately $170,000
each, under the State of California vehicle specifications. These estimates do not assume the vehicles will
use alternative fuels nor is a low-floor design assumed. The smaller vehicles appropriate for local
deviated fixed-route service costs on the order of $90,000 each, assuming a diesel-powered cutaway van
with ADA-accessibility features.

Alternative Fuels

To reduce pollution from mobile sources, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
adopted a variety of regulations as required by the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990. On
February 24, 2005, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted new emissions reduction
regulations applicable to diesel or alternative fueled transit vehicles. According to the rule, on-road
vehicles operated by a public transit agency that are less than 35 feet in length and 33,000 pounds Gross
Vehicle Weight Rate (GVWR), but greater than 8,500 GVWR, powered by heavy-duty engines fueled by
diesel or alternative fuel are considered transit fleet vehicles and are subject to the following
requirements (CARB, 2007):

    The particulate matter emissions of the total transit fleet (excluding non-transit fleet vehicles such as
    gas-powered vehicles) as of January 1, 2005, is considered the baseline emissions measurement.

    By December 31, 2007, particulate matter emissions of total transit fleet vehicles had to be reduced
    by 40 percent from baseline and NOx emissions could be no more than 3.2 grams per brake horse-
    power hour (g/bhp-hr). By December 31, 2010, total particulate matter emissions of transit fleet
    vehicles must be reduced by 80 percent from baseline and NOx must be no more than 2.4 g/bhp-hr.

An urban bus is a passenger carrying vehicle owned or operated by a public transit agency, powered by a
heavy heavy-duty engine, intended primarily for intra-city operation. Typically this includes buses 35 feet
or longer and/or greater than 33,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). CARB set different
standards for urban buses:

    NOx emissions fleet average must be no more than 4.8 g/bhp-hr.

    Diesel-powered urban bus particulate matter emissions must be reduced by 85 percent or meet 0.01
    g/bhp-hr times the total number of diesel-powered urban buses in the fleet.


Amador County                                                                 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                Page 111
If the transit agency chooses an alternative fuel path, at least 85 percent of urban bus purchases must be
fueled by alternative fuel and particulate matter emissions need only be reduced by 60 percent from the
2002 baseline by 2007. The 85 percent reduction of particulate matter emissions will apply to transit
agencies using alternative fuel in 2009.

A commuter service bus means a passenger-carrying vehicle powered by a heavy heavy-duty diesel
engine that is not otherwise an urban bus and which operates on a fixed-route primarily during peak
commute hours and that has no more than ten scheduled stops per day, excluding Park-and-Ride lots. A
commuter service bus is subject to transit fleet vehicle rules.

In order to develop a working concept of the different alternative fuels, their advantages and
disadvantages, and their potential application for the ARTS fleet, the following review of the eight
relatively common alternative fuel technologies is presented below.

In addition, global climate change or “global warming” is a major environmental issue which needs to be
acknowledged in planning documents. Climate change is caused by the release of greenhouse gases
(GHG’s) such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and
sulfur hexafluoride into the atmosphere which traps heat and increases temperatures near the earth’s
surface. Forecasted, long-term consequences of climate change range from a rise in the sea-level to a
significant loss of the Sierra snow pack. As a direct result of Assembly Bill (AB) 32, CARB has been
charged with developing rules and regulations that will reduce GHG emissions in the State of California
to 1990 levels by 2020. The “global” affect of each alternative fuel is also considered in the alternative
fuel discussion.

Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel

Diesel-fueled engines have traditionally dominated the transit vehicle marketplace with their fuel
efficiency and durability. From an air quality perspective, diesel engines have very low tailpipe emissions
of CO and other organic gases. The concern from an air quality perspective, however, has been the
emission rates of NOx and particulate matter.

Due to increasing environmental pressure to reduce the above emissions, the Environmental Protection
Agency and CARB, has developed stringent NOx and particulate matter regulations as referenced above.
The final Clean Air Amendments permit the use of clean diesel in urban buses, provided that the clean
diesel engines meet the particulate matter standards imposed by the CARB. In partial response to the
1990 CAAA amendments for cleaner burning fuels and the continued development of the previously
mentioned alternative fuels, the traditional diesel fuel engine has made great strides toward evolving with
a cleaner burning particulate trap and catalytic converter technology. All 2007 and later model year buses
will be designed to comply with CARB particulate matter and NOx emissions.

Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) is diesel fuel with 15 parts per million (ppm) or lower sulfur content.
This ultra-low sulfur content enables use of advanced emission control technologies such as particulate
traps and catalytic converters on light-duty and heavy-duty diesel vehicles. Fuel with a higher sulfur fuel
content can deactivate these devices and nullifies their emissions control benefits. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency required 80 percent of the highway diesel fuel refined in or imported
into the United States (100 percent in California) to be ULSD as of 2006. One hundred percent must be
ULSD nationwide by 2010. Different requirements apply to non-highway diesel.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                            Amador County
Page 112                                                                              Transit Development Plan
Methanol

Most of the methanol used commercially in the United States is manufactured from natural gas, making it
economical to use. The tailpipe emissions of methanol are generally considered to be about half as
reactive as an equal mass of emissions from gasoline or diesel fuel, promoting its use to reduce ozone in
urban areas, such as Los Angeles. By volume, methanol has slightly more than half the energy content of
diesel fuel and slightly more than half the energy content of gasoline. Due to the above characteristics, a
methanol engine will consume a little over twice the volume of fuel per mile of service, as compared to a
diesel engine.

Transit authorities in Los Angeles and Seattle have in the past retired their methanol programs due to the
fuel’s highly corrosive properties. Authorities from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)
cited that the buses are prone to costly mechanical repairs. Officials of the Seattle Metro eliminated their
methanol demonstration program after a trial period of five years. Test results of the program indicated
that severe engine malfunctions were experienced on the buses at 60,000 and 70,000 miles, largely
attributed to the corrosive nature of the fuel.

Ethanol

While not being as corrosive as methanol, the major use of ethanol is currently limited as an octane
additive and oxygenate for gasoline. As such the same basic engine can be used with both diesel and
ethanol fuel. According to Information Update, (Detroit Diesel Corporation, February 1992), the cost of
ethanol is almost twice as much as that of methanol, making its use limited as a motor vehicle fuel. Aside
from the fuel’s economic drawbacks, ethanol produces lower carbon monoxide (CO) emission rates than
gasoline, has a higher energy density than methanol, and has a lower toxicity than either methanol or
gasoline. Ethanol’s affect on greenhouse gases however depends on how the fuel is made. Ethanol
produced from corn has life cycle GHG emissions of about 15 percent less than gasoline vehicles. Ethanol
produced from woody biomass (E-100) has GHG emissions 60 to 75 percent below conventional gasoline
(excluding any impacts associated with land clearing).

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)

Natural gas is a domestically produced alternative fuel and is readily available to end users through the
utility infrastructure. The strength of CNG as an alternative fuel for transit buses is that it is generally less
expensive per unit of energy than gasoline or diesel fuels. Per the October 2007, Clean Cities Alternative
Fuel Price Report, the average price of CNG in the West Coast region was $2.60 per diesel gasoline
equivalents compared to $3.21 per gallon of diesel gasoline. The fuel also has the potential to reduce NOx
emissions and particulate matter when compared to diesel, although low sulfur diesel fuel used in
conjunction with particulate matter traps can reduce particulate matter emissions by a similar amount.
GHG emissions from CNG vehicles are approximately 15 percent to 20 percent lower than from gasoline
vehicles, since natural gas has a lower carbon content per unit of energy than gasoline. However, CNG
vehicles have about the same greenhouse gas emissions as diesel fuel vehicles, with lower CO2 emissions
offset by higher hydrocarbon emissions.

Many people – both inside and outside the transit industry – perceive CNG as the future fuel of choice.
Others see CNG as a stop-gap measure that can be used to reduce vehicle emissions until other
technologies (hydrogen fuel-cell or combustion-electric hybrid) are developed further. Indeed, the
decision to pursue CNG comes down to the underlying goals of the agency considering alternative fuels,
the local politics, the financial resources of the agency, and the commitment of decision-makers.



Amador County                                                                   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                  Page 113
Historically, the weakness of CNG is its difficult storage requirements. CNG is stored in high pressure
cylinders at pressures up to 3,000 pounds per square inch. The high weight, volume, and cost of the
storage tanks for CNG have been a barrier to its commercialization as an alternative fuel. The recent
development of lighter aluminum tanks, however, has reduced this disadvantage to some degree.

The advantages of a CNG bus are no visible pollution and quieter operation. The problems encountered
with CNG include the inconsistent quality of local CNG supplies, limited range of CNG vehicles, and
continued industry concerns regarding reliability. In particular, there is no local source of CNG fuel in
Amador County.

According to the FTA report, Transit Bus Life Cycle Cost and Year 2007 Emission Estimation, a CNG
bus costs between $25,000 to $50,000 more than a comparable diesel bus. This is due to the higher cost of
the engine itself and the higher cost of the fuel tanks. In addition, the study cited that a CNG refueling
station for an urban transit fleet costs between $320,000 and $7,400,000. Additional costs would be
incurred to upgrade the new maintenance facility with required safety features and to provide emergency
response equipment and training. These facility modification costs range from $500,000 to $15,000,000
for the urban transit agencies reviewed.

In a 1996 Department of Energy report, Pierce Transit (Tacoma, Washington) estimated that CNG
engines are about 20 percent less efficient than diesel engines on a per gallon equivalency which reduces
the range of CNG buses. CNG buses are described as having a driving range of about 300 miles (of
course depending upon the capacity of the gas cylinders) compared to a little more than 400 miles for
diesel buses. Typically, buses smaller than 35 feet in length are unable to accommodate enough fuel tanks
to operate a full urban cycle service day without refueling.

The issue of reliability is surrounded by diverging viewpoints. In the same 1996 Department of Energy
report, Pierce Transit noted no large difference in reliability between CNG- and diesel-powered buses.
The main problem they encountered in the beginning of their CNG program was difficulty with the fuel
control system – a problem they note has been resolved for the most part by advances in the technology
and continued training of maintenance staff. Indeed, CNG technology is still saddled somewhat with the
reliability problems that surfaced in the late 1980s when it was still very much in its infancy – especially
when dual-fuel technology was still the state-of-the-art. The technology truly has come a long way since
then, and reliability is seemingly much better.

However, in a 1999 report the Contra Costa County Transit Authority (CCCTA) noted that engine
manufacturers encounter CNG-related warranty claims that are between 50 percent and 250 percent
higher than their diesel counterparts. This may be a particular problem for agencies like ARTS who are
not located close to a CNG engine warranty provider. CCCTA also cited experience by BC Transit in
British Columbia, Canada. BC Transit started a two year comparison of 25 1996 New Flyer CNG-
powered buses and 25 1996 New Flyer diesel-powered buses, all with Detroit Diesel engines. Results for
the CNG fleet were as follows: the road call rate was four and a half times higher, parts and labor costs
were 132 percent higher, and overall maintenance costs were 61 percent higher. CCCTA has chosen to
pursue “clean diesel” technology.

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)

To store more energy onboard a vehicle in a smaller volume, natural gas can be liquefied. At atmospheric
pressure, LNG occupies only 1/600 the volume of natural gas in vapor form. One Gasoline Gallon
Equivalent equals about 1.5 gallons of LNG. Because it must be kept at such cold temperatures, LNG is
stored in double-wall, vacuum-insulated pressure vessels. LNG fuel systems typically are only used with


LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                             Amador County
Page 114                                                                               Transit Development Plan
heavy-duty vehicles. The potential advantages of the fuel lie in its economic considerations, where the
fuel’s processing costs are much less than that of the other gaseous fuels. LNG also has a greater potential
to reduce NOx and HC emissions when compared to diesel and gasoline fuels. Currently, the biggest
obstacles facing LNG are the lack of availability and its storage and handling facility requirements.

Hybrid Electric

An emerging vehicle propulsion technology that has recently gained national interest are hybrid electric
systems. Under this arrangement, battery-powered electric motors drive the wheels; the batteries are
charged using a small internal combustion engine (diesel-, gasoline- or alternative-fueled) to power an
electric generator. This arrangement provides near-zero emissions, as the engine operates within a very
narrow and efficient operating range.

Operating costs for a hybrid electric system are typically lower in comparison to conventional diesel- or
CNG powered arrangements due to greater fuel economy and reduced break wear (the batteries are also
charged through regenerative breaking, which tends to slow the vehicle while it recoups energy). In
addition, hybrid electric buses provide better acceleration and quieter operation than conventional internal
combustion engine propulsion systems. Another benefit of hybrid electric technologies is that it does not
require the large infrastructure investment that is required for CNG or LNG technologies. However, the
average price of a 40-foot hybrid bus typically ranges from $450,000 - $550,000 when compared to
$280,000 - $300,000 for a conventional diesel bus. In addition, conventional sealed-gel lead acid battery
systems typically last only two to three years, and replacement units cost on the order of $25,000. Better
battery technology currently exists that could extend battery life (i.e., nickel metal hydride), but this
technology currently costs $35,000 to $45,000. Hybrid buses which use ultra-low sulfur diesel and
particulate mater filters have 90 percent lower emissions than a conventional diesel bus. Hybrids have less
GHG emissions than both conventional diesel and CNG buses.

Hybrid electric propulsion systems have been tested at several large transit programs, most notably at
New York City Transit. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory prepared an evaluation of the
benefits of 10 new CNG Orion VII buses and 10 new Orion VII hybrids used for New York City Transit.
According to the report, hybrid maintenance costs were lower than the CNG buses, battery replacement
rate for the hybrid vehicles was about 4.5 percent per year, brake repair costs were 79 percent lower on
the hybrid buses than the CNG buses and the hybrids had fewer road calls. New York City Transit has
since placed an order for an additional 500 hybrid buses. Other agencies which have tested hybrid
technologies include Sunline Transit in Thousand Palms (California), the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Orange County Transportation Authority, Omnitrans in San
Bernardino, TriMet in Portland (Oregon), King County Metro Transit in Seattle, the Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority in Philadelphia, and New Jersey Transit.

Hybrid electric technology can be combined with various alternative fuel types such as biodiesel or
propane to increase emissions benefits. Full electric vehicles and hydrogen-powered buses are two other
emerging technologies that are being tested by several transit agencies, although many experts consider
these technologies to be on the leading edge of current understanding. Considerable research is still
necessary regarding the life cycle costs and benefits of these technologies before they should be
considered as viable options for small transit agencies.

Biodiesel Fuel

Biodiesel can be legally blended with petroleum diesel in any percentage. The percentages are designated
as B20 for a blend containing 20 percent biodiesel and 80 percent petroleum diesel, B100 for 100 percent
biodiesel, and so forth. B20 is the most common biodiesel blend in the United States and provides the

Amador County                                                               LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                              Page 115
benefits of biodiesel but avoids many of the cold-weather performance and material compatibility
concerns associated with B100. B20 can be used in nearly all diesel equipment and is compatible with
most storage and distribution equipment. Particulate matter, CO and Hydrocarbon emissions are reduced
by B20 and significantly more by B100, however NOx emissions actually increase.

Summary

No local requirements for alternative-fueled vehicles have been implemented in Amador County. Due to
the substantial grades on most of the existing commuter and local deviated fixed-routes, moreover, the
reduction in power associated with the current CNG engines would have a negative impact on transit
operations. Finally, experience at other small transit agencies in similar service areas has not been
encouraging. The Gold Country Stage system in Nevada County, California, which has similar terrain as
Amador County, has experienced maintenance cost per mile figures for their fleet of nine CNG-powered
buses to be similar to those of diesel buses at or past their economic useful lives. Indeed, the Gold
Country Stage’s CNG-powered buses cost (on average) 38.5 percent more to operate than their diesel-
powered buses. This service has also experienced problems associated with inadequate engine power. The
Gold Country Stage recently sold their CNG-powered buses so that they may pursue traditional gasoline-
and diesel-powered vehicles.

Barring fleet-wide conversion to alternative fuels, a number of steps can be taken to substantially reduce
the air quality impacts of gasoline- and diesel-fueled transit buses. Various transit systems have been
successful in reducing PM emissions through the application of modern gasoline and “clean-diesel”
technology. In particular, the utilization of a low sulfur diesel fuel has proven to reduce the average
annual PM emissions of a transit coach from 935 pounds to 260-300 pounds – roughly a 70 percent
reduction. In addition, installation of an electronically controlled fuel injection system and specially
designed transmission has dropped emission levels by 120 pounds of PM annually, for a total reduction in
emissions of 87 percent. Most of the ARTS vehicles currently use these technologies.

ARTS should remain open to the ideas of alternative fuels. However, it would have a greater impact on
local air quality through the purchase of modern gasoline and diesel equipment that meet stringent EPA
requirements, and by applying the dollars saved in maintenance costs to the provision of transit services
that take auto trips off of the regional roadways.

PASSENGER FACILITIES
The “street furniture” provided by the transit system is a key determinant of the system’s attractiveness to
both passengers and community residents. In addition, they increase the physical presence of the transit
system in the community. Bus benches and shelters can play a large role in improving the overall image
of a transit system and in improving the convenience of transit as a travel mode. More importantly, shelter
is vital to those waiting for buses in harsh weather conditions. In addition, passengers could benefit by
installing passenger amenities at major bus stops, particularly adjacent to regional shopping centers,
medical facilities, and social service agency facilities.

Adequate shelters and benches are particularly important in attracting ridership among the non-transit-
dependent population – those that have a car available as an alternative to the bus for their trip. Preference
should be given to locations with a high proportion of elderly or disabled passengers and areas with a
high number of daily boardings. Lighting and safety issues are equally important along major highways.
Consideration of evening service should include an analysis of lighting needs at designated bus stops.
This could range from overhead street lighting to a low powered light to illuminate the passenger waiting
area.


LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                             Amador County
Page 116                                                                               Transit Development Plan
The approximate cost of a 13 foot metal shelter is $4,000, while installation of the shelter can be an
additional $4,000 or more depending on site improvement requirements. Another $550 can be added for a
perforated metal 8 foot bench and an additional $550 would be required for a 30 gallon trash receptacle.
Adding solar lighting to a shelter costs on the order of $1,500. While total costs including installation
depends on site characteristics and the ability to use public works staff during off periods, total costs for a
new shelter fall in the range of $8,000 to $10,000. Maintenance and repair of vandalism to bus benches
and shelters is a very minor cost since they are designed to be very resistant to vandalism. As a result,
cleaning and maintenance costs are minimal.

Local Routes

ARTS undertook a detailed analysis of transit bus stop needs as part of the ARTS Capital Improvement
Program, which prioritized the top ten sites needing improvement in Amador County. These sites are
identified as follows:

1.    Petkovich Park – $13,000 for shelter and signage improvements
2.    Pine Grove Town Hall – $107,000 for a shelter, bench, taper/turnout and signage
3.    Wal-Mart in Martell – $22,000 for a shelter and signage
4.    SR 88/Silver Drive – $20,000 for a shelter, bench and signage
5.    Pine Grove Pharmacy – $2,500 for “No Parking” stripe and signage
6.    ARTS Terminal – $12,500 for a shelter, bench and signage
7.    River Pines – $18,500 for a shelter, bench and signage
8.    Pine Acres Resort – $20,000 for a shelter, bench and signage
9.    SR 88/Pioneer Creek – $2,750 for a bench and signage
10.   Main & Church Streets – $2,400 for a bench and signage

In total, these top ten projects would cost on the order of $220,650 in 2001 dollars, equivalent to
$285,000 in 2008 construction costs. Of these ten sites, approximately eight have been installed. These
and other existing shelters can be found in Table 19 of, which identifies a total of 15 shelters within the
ARTS system.

ARTS should consider constructing the remaining bus shelters to complete the passenger facilities portion
of the Capital Improvement Program, as recommended. In particular, popular locations such as the Wal-
mart in Martell should have higher priority, as continued growth is expected in this area.

Park-and-Ride Lots

ARTS currently provides weekday commuter service to Sacramento. However, if a rider wishes to access
intercity rail, bus or airline modes in Sacramento for an extended period, the rider has no place to park his
or her car. As such, a reasonable alternative is to construct a long-term park-n-ride lot on or near the
existing Route X Jackson/Sacramento service. As detailed in the ARTS Capital Improvement Program,4 a
suitable location for a park-and-ride facility is located at the intersection of SR 16 and SR 124.
Conceptual drawings indicate the provision of ten parking spaces (including one disabled parking space),
a bus pullout and passenger shelter with bench. This project is anticipated to cost on the order of $265,000
(in 2001 dollars), including $65,000 for preliminary and construction engineering. This is equivalent to
$342,000 at 2008 construction prices.




4
    Dokken Engineering, November 19, 2001.

Amador County                                                                  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                 Page 117
Further consideration for park-and-ride lots should be given to the SR 88 corridor along the Route M
service area. Should the “Upcountry Express” alternative be implemented, as discussed in Chapter 3,
parking facilities for passengers would be imperative since a limited number of stops would be provided
along the route. Incentives like designated parking areas would encourage the use of public transit within
Amador County along express routes.

Sutter Hill Transit Center

An important element in the ARTS system is the planned Sutter Hill Transit Center. To be located on a
parcel along Valley View Way, this center will provide a safe and attractive location for transfers between
buses, for additional park-and-ride activity, for driver breaks, and for pedestrian/bicycle access. It will
also substantially increase the “presence” of the public transit program in the community. This facility
may also be used for visitor information services. One intriguing opportunity with this facility is to use it
for short-term rentals of bicycles and/or small electric vehicles for local circulation in the Jackson/Sutter
Hill/Sutter Creek area. Current cost estimates for this facility are on the order of $5.3 million, depending
on final design.

ADVANCED PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES
Recent advances in communication and communication technologies have impacted all segments of
modern society and have found new applications in the transit industry. These technologies have come to
be known as Advanced Public Transportation Systems (APTS). For purposes of Amador County’s transit
environment, there are three promising technologies within the APTS umbrella that have been developed
over recent years: Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) systems, Demand Responsive Dispatching (DRD)
capabilities, and Automated Transit Information (ATI) systems.

Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL)

Originally developed in the trucking and package delivery industries, AVL has increasingly found
application within transit services. AVL employs in-vehicle transponders and a central geographic
mapping system using geo-positioning satellites (GPS) to locate, track, and monitor vehicles. The central
computer system automatically or manually (by the dispatcher) polls one or more vehicles. The polled
vehicle transmits the longitudinal and latitudinal coordinates, time/date and other information if available
(such as riders on board, etc.) back to the central computer. The dispatcher knows the vehicle’s location
based on triangulation of the signals received from the global positioning satellites. A computer screen in
the dispatch office displays a map indicating vehicle location, with an accuracy of plus or minus four feet.
This map can also display direction of travel and on-time status (a different color for vehicles operating
behind schedule, for example). Another potential benefit of AVL is increased emergency response in case
of an accident or security threat.

A number of rural and small urban transit systems have implemented AVL systems. Examples include
Boone County Transportation System (Iowa), Belle Urban System (Racine, Wisconsin), Blacksburg
Transit (Virginia), Dakota Area Resources & Transportation for Seniors (Minnesota), Cape Code
Regional Transit Authority (Massachusetts), and Flagler County Transit (Florida). The extent to which
each has incorporated these systems into a system-wide APTS program varies according to the
complexity of each transit system5. From 2001 to 2005 the Wisconsin Department of Transportation
surveyed several small to medium sized transit agencies before and after implementation of AVL



5
    FHWA-RD-98-146, U.S. Department of Transportation.

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                            Amador County
Page 118                                                                              Transit Development Plan
systems. The results were summarized in the Evaluation of User Impacts of Transit Automatic Vehicle
Location System in Medium and Small Size Transit Systems. One important finding of this research was
that the implementation of AVL improved on-time performance by 36 percent in some cases.

According to the FTA, the average cost of a baseline AVL system including on-board GPS, vehicle
tracking integrated with operations control center dispatching and security systems is $315,000. When
combined with other technologies or processes, AVL can deliver increased benefits in the areas of fleet
management, systems planning, safety and security, traveler information, fare payment, and data
collection. Introduction of an AVL system is often the first step in a more comprehensive APTS
implementation.

AVL technologies open up a range of additional services and benefits:

•   The ADA requires transit systems to provide voice announcements prior to major transit stops, to
    allow the visually impaired to more easily use transit services. Drivers, who are often more than busy
    coping with traffic congestion, find it difficult to consistently provide these announcements. With
    AVL, vehicle location and direction of travel can be used to trigger a computer processor on a transit
    vehicle to automatically make a synthesized announcement, and also potentially to display a message
    inside the vehicle.

•   An important benefit in larger urban systems is the ability for drivers to trigger a silent alarm, which
    automatically dispatches police to a bus. The response time to criminal activity on a bus is greatly
    reduced. This is probably not of particular concern in Amador County.

•   Pre-emption of traffic signals to allow quick passage for transit vehicles is also possible. Tying the
    GPS system into the traffic signal’s computer can trigger an extended green indication for buses
    approaching a signal. This option could potentially be used for all buses, or be limited to those buses
    operating behind schedule or those carrying relatively high passenger loads. Due to the relatively
    small number of traffic signals in Amador County, this strategy would not be appropriate.

•   Finally, automatic passenger counters record passenger activity by bus stop and time of day. The cost
    of this technology has decreased substantially over the past several years, equating to $1,000 to
    $1,200 per bus if installed at the same time the AVL system is installed.

Demand Responsive Dispatching (DRD)

DRD technologies use the computing speed of modern computers to match incoming ride requests with
available vehicle capacity to most efficiently assign vehicles to serve passenger requests. This can be a
very demanding computing task, as the number of potential combinations of passenger assignments to
even a small fleet of vehicles can be extremely large: the computer must assess the time required under
each potential assignment within a few seconds, taking into consideration the travel time impacts on
passengers already aboard the vehicles, as well as the potential for transfers.

Since the demand is constantly changing with new ride requests and rides being completed, the system
must read just the optimum utilization of the fleet of vehicles continually. How the system knows to
assign a ride request to a particular vehicle is based on several factors. These include vehicle location,
vehicle load, vehicle destination, and caller location and destination. The system may also consider
specific needs of the current passengers if the system is programmed to do so. Ride requests can be
generated from a number of sources, including phone requests (either using a human operator or through
a voice mail system), a “touch pad” at specific transit stops, or specialized touch pads at important trip
generators (such as social service facilities or lodging properties).

Amador County                                                                 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                Page 119
A variety of software packages have been developed to allow “real-time” dispatching to varying degrees.
With names such as “ParaMatch™,” “EasyRides®,” “MIDAS-PT,” “ParaLogic,” “PASS,” many of these
systems have been designed for demand response systems for elderly persons and persons with
disabilities.

Some of these dispatching programs allow data to be relayed to the driver via radio frequency
communications to a liquid crystal display text screen mounted next to the dashboard, commonly called
mobile data terminals (MDTs). This data is continually updated to display the driver’s next several pick-
up and delivery points. If ARTS seek to implement MDTs, it should ensure their future dispatch program
communicates appropriately with these units prior to formal procurement.

Automated Transit Information (ATI)

Once AVL and DRD technologies are put in place, it is a relatively straightforward process to
automatically provide passengers with “real-time” information regarding transit services. Provided with
vehicle location, vehicle travel speed, and the passenger’s desired service point, a computer can readily
estimate the number of minutes before service is actually provided. This information can be disseminated
in a number of ways:

    Automated phone systems can be used to provide information. Transit passengers in the Ottawa,
    Ontario area, for example, can call Ottawa-Carlton Transit, punch in their bus stop number and
    desired route, and be provided with the next several service times at their stop. Riders can also access
    this information via the Internet.

    Video terminals placed in transit terminals and shopping malls are also used to provide “real time”
    arrival and departure times in Halifax, Nova Scotia and Broward County, Florida. A similar system is
    currently installed at various locations around Anaheim, California (including the Anaheim Stadium
    and the Hilton) providing real-time traffic congestion information. Overseas, real-time information is
    already widely provided in Stockholm, Sweden, and Osnabruck, Germany.

Potential APTS Applications for Amador County

The complexity of the local transit services makes efficient connections between services very important.
The availability of AVL would be a help to dispatchers in directing efficient connections between various
ARTS routes. At present, however, radio communication to schedule transfers and coordinate services
remains a viable option. In addition, With aging of the population, demand for door-to-door services is
expected to grow substantially. AVL and MDT technologies would be useful in maximizing the
efficiency of demand response services, particularly with regard to service to the more outlying portions
of the ARTS service area. However, experience at other similar-sized transit services indicates that the
current ARTS services are not quite at the “critical mass” at which APTS technologies can be cost-
effective.

Consider On-Board Surveillance System

A technology that has been implemented by transit and school bus agencies across the country to address
behavior issues on buses is the use of on-board surveillance cameras. The leading technology uses a
digital recording system that can simultaneously record several cameras at once. The Logan Transit
District in Logan, Utah recently implemented a system that records activity in the rear of the bus (which
is particularly difficult for the driver to monitor), the entrance and exit stairways, and the driver’s area.



LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                             Amador County
Page 120                                                                               Transit Development Plan
The system also includes voice-recording abilities. This system cost approximately $2,000 per bus, plus
approximately $2,500 for software and hardware needed at the operations base for transferring and
storing the data. It is estimated that it would cost on the order of $26,500 to implement a similar system
on the ARTS fleet.

Recent advancements allow agencies to monitor driver actions, such as brake and throttle use, engine
idling time and brake retarder use. Leading edge technologies allow agencies to monitor activity from a
central base using radio frequency transmission, which is particularly useful for security purposes.

Electronic Fareboxes

Fare payment technology has come a long way since the original mechanical “drop box” that has been in
use for several decades. As the single-ride fare at more and more transit agencies approached $1.00 in the
1970s, transit agencies began turning to electronic fareboxes to process cash, tickets, and tokens. In
addition, electronic fareboxes allowed planners to track trip-related data such as zone and passenger type.

Electronically registering fareboxes are becoming more and more commonplace in transit buses.
Somewhat more simple systems require that drivers use a keypad to indicate a fare category. More
complex systems allow the fitting of swipe card readers to accept magnetic tickets and multi-ride passes.
Leading edge technologies involve integration with other on-board electronic equipment, including AVL,
automatic passenger counters, destination signs, and others. Integration of the various electronic
components requires them to be compatible with one another, which may be difficult if they are procured
independently at different times.

Although the cost per farebox has declined slightly over the past decade, systems appropriate for ARTS
are still quite costly. For instance, the system recently implemented on the Redding Area Bus Authority
fixed-route buses on the order of $5,000 per bus. Additional computer hardware and software may also be
required to collect the data and maintain the equipment, and resources would be required to train drivers
on the use of the systems, to train maintenance personnel on methods to maintain the equipment, and to
train staff on how to collect and use the data collected. Another concern regarding this equipment is the
impact of dirt and dust on reliability; systems that do not take particular precautions to guard against
contamination, both in-service and in the maintenance shop, can be faced with ongoing maintenance
problems. Overall, electronic fareboxes would not be a cost-effective investment for ARTS.




Amador County                                                                LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                               Page 121
                                       This page left intentionally blank.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                   Amador County
Page 122                                                                     Transit Development Plan
                                                                                                 Chapter 8
                               Institutional and Management Alternatives
INCREASED ARTS ROLE AS COORDINATED TRANSPORTATION SERVICE
AGENCY

The ACTC has designated ARTS as the “Consolidated Transportation Services Agency” (CTSA) for
Amador County, under the terms of the state Transportation Development Act. This designation allows
for a portion of TDA funds to be allocated “off the top” prior to the remainder of the allocation process.
(However, it is important to note that CTSA designation does not necessarily increase the total amount of
funds available for public transportation programs if, as in Amador County, there are no claims for other
purposes and overall minimum farebox return ratio requirements are met.) As the CTSA, ARTS is
responsible for administering the Social Service Transportation Advisory Committee (SSTAC), and also
has a higher responsibility for considering means of coordinating transportation services to most effective
meet the overall needs of the transportation disadvantaged of the County.

ARTS already has a relatively vibrant role in the overall coordination of transit services (in comparison
with other similar counties), including a strong SSTAC process and institutional arrangements with the
Valley Mountain Regional Center. Other avenues for increased coordination of transit management,
procurement and services could be pursued. For example, due to budget constraints, it is becoming
increasingly difficult for Amador County service agencies like Behavioral Health Services to provide
transportation for clients to and from their facilities or programs. One possible remedy for these agencies
would be to contract services with ARTS.

Rather than provide the services on a contract basis, the ACTC could strive to coordinate their services
with various social service agencies, such as Behavioral Health. For example, ARTS could provide the
County agency with transit vouchers at a reduced cost for the agency’s clients. Other coordinated services
could include increased marketing and education regarding the transit system as a whole and tips for
using the services to their regular destinations. Additionally, transportation reimbursement programs and
other volunteer programs could be organized and managed by ARTS or the ACTC, whose service would
be available to Behavioral Health Services and other agencies. Benefits of coordination in rural
communities include greater level of funding availability and lower costs for both the social service
agency and transit provider, among others. In the case of Amador County Behavioral Health Services,
coordinating services reduces the need for in-house transportation and thus reduces costs.

UNMET NEEDS DEFINITION
An important institutional factor under the TDA is the definition of “unmet needs that are reasonable to
meet.” Simply put, this definition identifies those transit programs that must be funded, in preference to
other non-transit transportation purposes. The definition of unmet needs under the current ACTC
resolution is as follows:

    “WHEREAS, the commission has defined an unmet transit need as Areasonable-to-meet@ if the
    following conditions prevail:

    A. Service which, if implemented or funded, would not cause the operator to incur expenditures in
       excess of the maximum amount of Transportation Development Act Funds available to Amador
       County.



Amador County                                                                LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                               Page 123
    B. The projected passengers per hour and farebox recovery ratio are at least 80 percent of the
       current system average.

    C. The proposed service does not duplicate transit services currently provided either publicly or
       privately.

    D. The proposed service has community acceptance from the general public or Amador County.

    E. The proposed service is in response to an existing rather than a future need.

    F. The cost of providing the proposed service does not exceed 10.66 dollars per passenger as
       calculated based on an average operating cost of 80.00 dollars per hour.

    G. Interregional service to Sacramento is considered a Ademonstration project@ which is unable to
       operate inside the cost per passenger and average operating cost figures identified in Item AF@
       above, however, the service is considered reasonable to meet given the unique relationship that
       exists for coordinated service with Sacramento COG, the Sacramento Board of Supervisors, and
       Regional Transit.”

In general, this definition is appropriate and consistent with the definition adopted by similar Regional
Transportation Planning Agencies around California. LSC has the following specific comments regarding
this definition:

    The performance standards identified in Subparagraph B tie the definition to the existing systemwide
    average. The farebox return ratio of some services funded through contracts (Routes C and V),
    however, are very high. The subparagraph should at a minimum be revised to read “…farebox return
    ratio (excluding contract revenues)…”

    Comparing 80 percent of the current systemwide values for these two performance measures against
    the current routes (excluding the contract revenues) as shown in Table 15, the passengers per hour
    standard of 5.8 is not met by Route P (at 4.9) or Route R (at 3.3). The existing farebox return ratio
    standard inferred by this definition (5.6 percent) is also not met by Route P (4.4 percent) or Route R
    (1.6 percent). Depending on the decisions made as part of this TDP study, the Commission should
    review whether it is appropriate to identify unmet needs standards that are not attained by existing
    services.

    Subparagraph F identifies a performance measure based on cost per passenger-trip. However, the
    important factor with regards to public TDA funds is the subsidy per passenger-trip. As an example,
    the ARTS Route TM service currently has a high cost per passenger-trip, but (as the service is funded
    by VMRC) requires virtually no TDA subsidy.

    Other jurisdictions do not identify a specific means of estimating operating costs (“based on an
    average operating cost of 80.00 dollars per hour”). In addition to the fact that inflation requires this
    value to be updated each year, other jurisdictions recognize that it is not possible to accurately
    estimate costs for services based upon a simple total allocated cost per vehicle-hour of service. As an
    example, a taxi subsidy program’s costs would be defined by the costs of the contract service
    provider, rather than the public transit program. Instead, the operating costs should be estimated on a
    case-by-case basis. LSC would recommend changing this portion of the definition to “The subsidy
    required to provide the proposed service does not exceed 10.66 dollars per passenger as calculated by
    ARTS staff.”


LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                             Amador County
Page 124                                                                               Transit Development Plan
It should be noted that, under the TDA, the issue of how “unmet needs” are defined is irrelevant once all
funds available for transit purposes are used for that specific purpose (rather than being used for “streets
and roads”). In fact, if no claims are considered under Article 8 (“streets and roads”) the entire unmet
needs hearing process is not required. Instead, when all available funds are being used for public
transportation, the adopted local transit performance standards are used to make funding allocation
decisions.

MARKETING IMPROVEMENTS
Marketing in its broadest context should be viewed as a management philosophy focusing on identifying
and satisfying customers’ wants and needs. The basic premises of successful marketing are providing the
right product or service, offering it at the right price, and adequately promoting or communicating the
existence and appropriateness of the product or service to potential customers. Unfortunately, the word
“marketing” is associated only with the advertising and promotional efforts that accompany “selling” the
product or service to a customer. Instead, such promotional efforts are only a part of an overall marketing
process. Without a properly designed and developed product or service offered at the right price, the
expenditure of promotional monies is often ill-advised.

Obviously, the marketing program must fit within budgetary limitations of any organization. According to
the American Public Transit Association, transit providers typically budget between 0.75 and 3.0 percent
of their gross budget on marketing promotions (excluding salaries), with the majority around 2 percent.
Although this is slightly less than most private sector businesses, public sector organizations can rely
more heavily on media support for their public relations programs.

Improve Service Quality

A key precept of marketing is to provide a quality “product.” In the case of public transit, a reputation for
providing quality service encourages increased ridership and public support for transit. Tax-based funding
and fares are more acceptable when service quality is high. A key marketing effort, therefore, is to
improve on-time performance, passenger amenities, and reduce in-vehicle travel time. Solving these
problems and subsequently improving the public perception of ARTS’ quality of service through
marketing is essential. The following service monitoring techniques should be ongoing:

    On-Time Performance – Comprehensive records of on-time performance are useful in determining
    proper scheduling and ensuring quality service. At a minimum, transit supervisors should be required
    to do a standardized observance of on-time performance as part of their service checks. This data
    should be entered into spreadsheets to allow tracking. In addition, on-time performance surveys
    should be conducted at least twice per year.

    Annual Passenger Survey – On-board passenger surveys are a vital source of planning information
    regarding the ridership and the purpose of their trip-making. In addition, surveys are the single best
    way to gain “feedback” regarding the service. Funding for annual on-board surveys should be a
    priority. Questions that should be addressed in the annual passenger survey include the following:

     -   Day and date that the survey is completed

     -   Time at which the survey is completed

     -   Route that the passenger is traveling



Amador County                                                                 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                Page 125
     -   Passenger gender

     -   Passenger age

     -   Whether the passenger is disabled, and if so, the type of disability

     -   Origin of trip (major intersection near trip origin) and trip destination (major intersection near trip
         destination)

     -   Purpose of trip, typically categorized as work, shopping, recreational, social, educational, other

     -   Rating of the transit service (poor, fair, good, very good, excellent)

     -   Suggestions for improvements in transit service

    Boarding and Alighting Counts – It is worthwhile, on at least an annual or biannual basis, to
    conduct a day-long count for boarding and alighting by stop for each of the services operated. There
    are a number of useful pieces of information that can be gleaned from a boarding and alighting count:

     -   Identify the most important stops

     -   Rank bus stops for potential passenger amenities, such as shelters or benches

     -   Identify the section along the route where the maximum load occurs. This information is very
         important in identifying the appropriate vehicle size for the service, as well as to track the service
         quality issues, such as passenger overcrowding.

Marketing for New Services and Service Changes

One common and important aspect of marketing that could be particularly effective is to increase the
awareness of residents to any service changes before they are implemented. This increased awareness
would translate into higher demand for transit services. There are several methods ARTS can use to
inform residents and passengers of changes to existing services and newly implemented services.

News and Media Coverage

There are many advantages to pursuing news media coverage for a transit system whenever possible.
There is no cost, it reaches across a broad spectrum of the population, it is credible, and in small
communities media are often anxious for news stories. By being proactive, a transit agency can make it
easy for news media to tell their story. The better the information is that is provided to the media, the
more likely they are to use it and the more likely the transit agency will be pleased with the results.

Several steps are involved in taking advantage of local media. The transit system should know the local
media (TV stations, newspapers, radio stations) and should form a relationship with them. The transit
agency should know what is newsworthy, such as large system changes or special events. Transit can be
tied into timely events, such as touting ridership increase in relation to increasing gas prices, or earth day
events. Finally, the transit system manager should know how to write a news release and should create a
news release calendar to make sure they are regularly taking advantage of this resource.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                               Amador County
Page 126                                                                                 Transit Development Plan
Community Marketing

This is direct marketing through partnerships with community organizations such as schools and colleges,
businesses and employers, social services, senior residences and senior centers, and neighborhood
associations. The benefits of community based marketing are that it is effective and inexpensive, and that
it capitalizes on transit’s unique role as a community service. It also allows the transit agency to
specifically target messages and appeals, and it allows them to provide the high information content
necessary to generate ridership. It also allows the partner to provide direct feedback on how well transit is
meeting their needs.

The first step in community based marketing is to identify a target group and then determine the
“gatekeeper” for that audience. For example, the “gatekeeper” for social services would be the director.
ARTS engages in community based marketing through relationships it has built and continues to build.
ARTS regularly communicates with the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council, which gets the
word out to the major social service organizations in the County.

Presentations

Public speaking is the ultimate low cost marketing tool. It shows confidence in your message and is a
great image builder (if done well). It puts a face on the transit organization. It can be done interactively so
that the speaker can answer questions and convey customized information. The target audience would
likely be seniors, students, welfare to work clients, and employee groups. The presentation can be for
non-users as well. Speaking to members of civic and business organizations enables the transit agency to
set up an identity as part of the community. It is also useful to present to decision makers and elected
officials to maintain a positive image.

Schedule Information at Bus Stops

One marketing strategy which was highlighted as part of the TDP process is posting schedules at major
bus stops. The major benefit from this strategy is that existing passengers and potential passengers would
be well informed and provided with easy access to transit information. The disadvantage of posting
schedules is that routes and schedules can change frequently. In addition to reprinting costs, additional
staff time would be required to keep schedule information at bus stops up to date. Vandalism is another
factor which should be considered.

There are various methods of displaying transit schedules at bus stops. The least expensive method, which
is somewhat resilient to weather and vandalism, is placing the schedule underneath a Plexiglas protector
inside the shelter or below the bus stop sign post. This would cost approximately $100 per stop.

Related to this topic is the general provision of signage of all stops. Currently, ARTS does not have
appropriate signage at all of the stops along the routes. By not identifying bus stop locations, potential
passengers are unaware that there may be a convenient stop near their home, place of work, or other
destination, thus compromising ridership potential for the system. All stops should be identified,
particularly since the schedule does not list every stop.

ARTS System Map and Schedule

The current ARTS system map is relatively simple, however it is difficult to provide great detail on the
routes on such a small document, particularly given the ARTS service area. ARTS could consider
expanding the size of the document to present map insets of the routes in each of the cities served, as well


Amador County                                                                  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                 Page 127
as include information on the deviation provisions (three-quarters of a mile deviations, per ADA
requirements). The result would be a map that makes detailed service area and schedule information
easier to decipher.

Since many routes use the ARTS terminal as a stop, the address should be clearly marked on the schedule.
Similarly, when the transit center in Sutter Hill is constructed, this location should be well advertised so
that passengers are aware of the new address.

In addition, ARTS should consider providing information on those services that are not indicated on the
system map and schedule. For example, information regarding Route K, which provides after-school
service from Jackson Elementary School to areas between Jackson and Sutter Hill, should be included on
the schedule. Currently, there is no indication that this route is part of the ARTS system. At the very least,
the system map and schedule should be modified to indicate that “school tripper” services are clearly
shown. Finally, the schedule should be modified to indicate that route deviations can be requested the
previous service day (i.e., on Sunday for a Monday trip), as required by the ADA.

The current printed schedules identify many stops as “on call,” which infers that a potential passenger
must call in advance for service. Instead, most of these stops are along the route and simply require a
boarding passenger to flag down the bus. Also, it is not common transit practice to list a schedule time for
each and every signed stop, as this can require the bus to frequently wait along the route during periods of
low traffic congestion or passenger delays. Instead, the schedule should show scheduled times only at
“time points” located roughly every 5 minutes along the schedule or in each community. Table 29
provides an example.

During unmet needs hearings, comments were presented regarding the naming of the ARTS routes. The
current titles, such as Route I or Route V, do not clearly identify the direction and destination of the
routes. One option would be to rename the routes by origin or destination. For example, Route I would
become “Ione – Sutter Hill.” This would help to eliminate confusion and better advertise the services that
ARTS provides.

Internet Website

ARTS currently maintains a high quality and comprehensive website that provides an overview of current
services and contact information. The interactive route map that leads to the schedule provides easy
access to timetables. In an effort to expand the public’s awareness of alternate transportation services and
information, ARTS may want to consider adding links to the ACTC website, as well as websites for
rideshare/vanpool programs and social service agencies that provide transportation. Further, as new
programs and services are implemented (i.e. Reserve-A-Ride or Transportation Reimbursement Program),
information should be provided on the website.

Because of the importance of the ARTS terminal within the current bus routes as a stop, the website
should clearly identify the address of the terminal. Further, the new Sutter Hill transit center, once
constructed, should be shown on the route map online as well as the center’s address.

Continue Implementation of the Transit Marketing Plan

In addition to the marketing strategies discussed above, the Transit Marketing Plan developed for ARTS
in 1999 provides a range of marketing strategies that remain appropriate, including the following:




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                             Amador County
Page 128                                                                               Transit Development Plan
                                           TABLE 29: Example of Simplified Schedule Format
                                           For Route M




Amador County
                                                                                                                       Run
                                           Stop                                   M1            M2x            M4              M4          M5            M6
                                           Amador High School                  No Service    No Service      On Call         on call     on call       on call




Transit Development Plan
                                           Sutter Hill                            5:40          7:40           9:30          12:49        3:15          5:10
                                           Argonaut High School                 On Call        on call       On Call         on call     on call       on call
                                       O
                                           Jackson (Petkovich Park)               5:53       No Service        9:43           1:02        3:28          5:23
                                       U
                                           Ridge Road Nursery                   On Call        on call       On Call         on call     on call       on call
                                       T
                                           Pine Grove (Pharmacy)                  6:08          7:55           9:58           1:17        3:43          5:38
                                       B
                                           Pine Acres Resort                    On Call        on call       On Call         on call     on call       on call
                                       O
                                           Pioneer (Post Office)                  6:19          8:06          10:09           1:28        3:54          5:49
                                       U
                                           Buckhorn (Payless Grocery)             6:28          8:15          10:18           1:37        4:03          5:58
                                       N
                                           Amador Station                       On Call      No Service      On Call         On Call     On Call       On Call
                                       D
                                           Woodland Road                        On Call      No Service      On Call         On Call     On Call       On Call
                                           OK Corral                            On Call      No Service      On Call         On Call     On Call       On Call
                                           Deer Ridge Inn                       On Call      No Service      On Call         On Call     On Call       On Call
                                           N. Meadow & Sugar Pine Drive           6:47          8:34          10:37           1:52        4:22          6:17
                                           Mace Meadow                            6:52          8:39          10:42           1:57        4:27          6:22
                                           Silver Drive                          On Call       On Call       On Call         On Call     On Call       On Call
                                       I
                                           Buckhorn (Payless Grocery)             6:55          8:42          10:45           2:00        4:30          6:25
                                       N
                                           Pioneer (Post Office)                  7:03          8:50          10:53           2:08        4:38          6:33
                                       B
                                           Pine Acres Resort                     On Call       On Call       On Call         On Call     On Call       On Call
                                       O
                                           Pine Grove (Town Hall)                 7:25          9:12          11:15           2:30        5:00          6:55
                                       U
                                           Ridge Road Nursery                    On Call       On Call       On Call         On Call     On Call       On Call
                                       N
                                           Jackson (Main & California)            7:39          9:26          11:29           2:44        5:15          7:09
                                       D
                                           Argonaut High School                  On Call       On Call       On Call         On Call     On Call       On Call
                                           Sutter Hill                            7:44          9:31          11:34           2:49        5:20          7:14
                                           Amador High School                    On Call       On Call       On Call         On Call     On Call       On Call
                                           Not all stops along route listed. Service available to locations within 1/2 mile of route for general public, 3/4 mile
                                           for persons eligible under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
                                           Note: Route M2x eastbound proceeds via Ridge Road, and does not serve stop on Hwy 88 west of Ridge Road.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                          Page 129
    Increase coordination between ARTS and social service agencies via attendance of social service
    meetings, training for social service staff on ARTS services, and distribution of marketing materials
    through social services.

    Increase awareness of ARTS services to occasional riders and the general public, through regular
    news releases, advertising in telephone books, and provision of route and schedule information at
    high activity centers such as retail stores, town halls, and recreation centers.

    Provision of personal trip planning information by phone, and developing a “transit ambassador”
    program in which new passengers are guided through their first trip on the ARTS system.

These plan elements are hereby incorporated into the TDP

Marketing/Special Project Position

This document identifies many potential transit program elements – including new and innovative
services, and expanded marketing efforts – that will require additional ARTS staff time to successfully
implement. Existing ARTS administrative staff, tasked with the many elements of a modern transit
program, does not have the time to provide the focus necessary to efficiently pursue new efforts. A new
position focusing on marketing and special projects (including the Reserve-A-Ride and/or reimbursement
program) may be warranted, if such programs are included in the final TDP and if funds can be identified.
This position could be part- or full-time, again depending on work responsibilities and funding.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                           Amador County
Page 130                                                                             Transit Development Plan
                                                                                                  Chapter 9
                                                                      Financial Alternatives
The crux of any issue regarding the provision of public service is the matter of funding. Provision of a
sustainable, permanent funding source has proven to be the single greatest determinant in the success or
failure of transit service.

Experience with transit systems outside of large urban areas underscores the critical importance of a
secure source or sources of local funding if the long-term viability of transit service is to be assured.
Transit services dependent on annual appropriations and informal agreements suffer in the following
manners:

    Passengers are not sure from one year to the next if service will be provided. As a result, potential
    passengers may opt to purchase a first or second car, rather than rely on the continued availability of
    transit service.

    Transit drivers are also not sure of having a long-term position. As a result, a transit system may
    suffer from high turnover, low morale, and a resulting high accident rate.

    The lack of a dependable source of financial support inhibits investment in both vehicles and
    facilities. Public agencies are less likely to enter into cooperative agreements if the long-term survival
    of the transit organization is in doubt.

    To provide high-quality transit service and to become a well-established part of the community, a
    dependable source of funding is essential. Factors which must be carefully considered in evaluating
    financial alternatives include the following:

    -    It must be equitable – the costs of transit service to various segments of the population must
         correspond with the benefits they accrue.

    -    Collection of tax funds must be efficient.

    -    It must be sustainable – the ability to confidently forecast future revenues is vital in making
         correct decisions regarding capital investments such as vehicles and facilities.

    -    It must be acceptable to the public.

A wide number of potential transit funding sources are available, particularly within California. The
following discussion provides an overview of these programs. This discussion will be developed in
greater detail as analysis of operating and capital alternatives yield estimates of total future funding
requirements.

FEDERAL TRANSIT FUNDING SOURCES
FTA Section 5309 Capital Program

These grants are split into three categories: New Starts, Fixed Guideway Modernization, and Bus and
Bus Facilities. Typically, an intensive lobbying effort is necessary to receive a Section 5309 earmark. The
“Small Starts” component of the New Starts program, which provides funding and oversight for projects


Amador County                                                                 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                Page 131
seeking less than $75 million dollars in New Starts funds, was authorized for separate funding beginning
in FY 2007 under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (SAFETEA-LU). For FTA FY 2008/09, a total of $407,717 is available for the Amador County
Transit Center in Sutter Hill.

FTA Section 5310 Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program

FTA funds are also potentially available through the Section 5310 Elderly and Persons with Disabilities
Program (largely vehicles), which is administered by Caltrans. Until recently, recipients of Section 5310
funding were restricted to non-profit organizations; with passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and subsequent Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21),
however, local governmental jurisdictions are also eligible for funding. FTA FY 2007/08 apportionments
totaled $12.4 million statewide, and proposed apportionments for FY 2008/09 will total $13.5 million
statewide.

FTA Section 5311 Nonurbanized Area Formula Program

Federal transit funding for rural areas, such as Amador County, is currently provided through the FTA
Section 5311 Nonurbanized Area Formula Program. In California, a 16.43 percent local match is required
for capital programs and a 47.77 percent match for operating expenditures. Per FTA section 5319, only a
10 percent local match is required for capital projects used to provide access for bicycles to transit
facilities, or to install racks or other equipment for transporting bicycles on transit vehicles. These funds,
administered by Caltrans, are segmented into “apportioned” and “discretionary” programs. The bulk of
the funds are apportioned directly to rural counties based on population levels. The remaining funds are
distributed by Caltrans on a discretionary basis and are typically used for capital purposes. FTA Section
5311 funds budgeted for ARTS operations in FY 2006/07 was approximately $132,782. Statewide,
Section 5311 funds totaled $19.4 million in FTA FY 2006/07. During FY 2007/08, nearly $20 million
was available statewide, and for FY 2008/09, approximately $21 million will be available statewide.

FTA Section 5313(b) State Planning and Research Program

The FTA provides a total of approximately $10.8 million annually in funds to all the state departments of
transportation for use in statewide planning projects and planning support in non-urbanized areas, as well
as other research and demonstration projects. These funds are allocated to the states by population (with a
minimum of 0.5 percent allocated to any one state), and require a 20 percent local match. This funding
source is commonly used to fund transit plan studies.

FTA Section 5308 Clean Fuels Grant Program

This is a discretionary grant program funded through SAFETEA-LU. The program has a two-fold
purpose. First, the program was developed to assist non-attainment and maintenance areas in achieving or
maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and carbon monoxide (CO). Second,
the program supports emerging clean fuel and advanced propulsion technologies for transit buses and
markets for those technologies. Recipients must be eligible to receive FTA 5307 funding and be classified
as a maintenance or non-attainment area for ozone and CO. Currently there are no funds available to
distribute for this program.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                              Amador County
Page 132                                                                                Transit Development Plan
FTA Section 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute Program (JARC)

The JARC grant program assists states and localities in developing new or expanded transportation
services that connect welfare recipients and other low-income persons to jobs and other employment
related services. Job access projects are targeted at developing new or expanded transportation services
such as shuttles, vanpools, new bus routes, connector services to mass transit, and guaranteed ride home
programs for welfare recipients and low-income persons. Reverse commute projects provide
transportation services to suburban employment centers from urban, rural, and other suburban locations
for all populations. JARC funding is available for transit services in rural and small urban areas. A JARC
applicant must also have a Coordinated Human Services Transportation plan. An (80/20 match) is
required for capital projects, and at least a 50 percent (50/50 match) of projects for operating assistance.
The maximum per project per year grant award is $200,000. In FTA FY 2007/08, there was nearly $1.5
million in funding available for non-urbanized areas (population 50,000 or less) for the governor to
distribute. For 2008/09, the funding available has increased to nearly $1.6 million for non-urbanized
areas.

FTA Section 5317 New Freedom Program

This new program under SAFETEA-LU provides formula funding for “new” public transportation
services beyond those required by ADA for persons with disabilities. The idea behind the program is to
help communities provide transportation services beyond those required by ADA and to help people with
disabilities participate more fully in the workforce and in community life. Eligible projects include
voucher programs and volunteer driver programs. Funds are apportioned to the individual states based on
the disabled population, and only 20 percent is available to non-urbanized areas. Projects outside
urbanized areas must be included in, or be consistent with the Statewide Long-Range Transportation Plan,
as developed by the state, and must be included in the STIP. As with the JARC program, projects must be
derived from the Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan. An (80/20 match) is required for
capital projects, and at least a 50 percent (50/50 match) of projects for operating assistance. The
maximum per project per year grant award is $125,000.

Proposition 1B (PTMISEA)

On November 7, 2006, California voters approved Proposition 1B, the Highway Safety, Traffic
Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, which authorized the issuance of $19.925
billion in general obligation bonds to invest in high-priority improvements to the state's surface
transportation system and to finance strategies to improve air quality. Among the programs contained in
Proposition 1B is the $3.6 billion Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service
Enhancement Account (PTMISEA). When appropriated by the Legislature, funds in the PTMISEA are to
be used to fund various mass transportation projects, including rehabilitation, safety or modernization
improvements, capital enhancements or expansion, rail transit improvement, bus rapid transit
improvements, the acquisition of rolling stock, and other similar investments. The funds in the PTMISEA
are to be dispersed according to the formula used to distribute funds in the State Transit Assistance Fund
(STA).

STATE TRANSIT FUNDING SOURCES
Transportation Development Act Local Transportation Funding (LTF)

A mainstay of funding for transit programs in California is provided by the Transportation Development
Act (TDA). The major portion of TDA funds are provided through the Local Transportation Fund (LTF).


Amador County                                                                LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                               Page 133
These funds are generated by a one-fourth cent statewide sales tax, returned to the county of origin. The
returned funds must be spent for the following purposes:

    Two percent must be provided for bicycle facilities (barring certain findings).

    The remaining funds must be spent for transit and paratransit purposes, unless the Transportation
    Commission finds that no unmet transit needs exist that can be reasonably met.

    If a finding of no unmet needs that are reasonable to meet is made, remaining funds can be spent on
    roadway construction and maintenance purposes.

TDA-LTF funds allocated to the ARTS program in FY 2006/07 totaled $998,620, and in FY 2007/08
totaled $952,398. Nearly all of the available funds are being utilized for transit, with the remainder going
to fund administration, bicycle programs, regional planning, and a small amount for streets and roads. In
FY 2008/09, LTF funding is anticipated to decrease by 2 percent to $923,160 and is expected to use
approximately 75 percent of the funds for transit and no funding being allocated to local jurisdictions.

State Transit Assistance (STA) Funds

In addition to LTF funding, the TDA includes a State Transit Assistance (STA) funding mechanism. The
sales tax on gasoline is used to reimburse the state coffers for the impacts of the 1/4 cent sales tax used for
LTF. Any remaining funds (or “spillover”) are available to the counties for local transportation purposes.
FY 2006/07 there was no STA funding allocated to Amador County.

LOCAL TRANSIT FUNDING SOURCES
AB 2766 Vehicle Air Pollution Fees

California Assembly Bill 2766 allows local air quality management districts to level a $2 to $4 per year
fee on vehicles registered in their district. These funds are to be applied to programs designed to reduce
motor vehicle air pollution, as well as the planning, monitoring, enforcement, and technical study of these
programs. Across the state, these funds have been used for local transit capital and operating programs.

Sales Tax

A sales tax election could be held with funds to go to transit service. Sales tax is the financial base for
many transit services in the West. The required level of sales tax would depend upon the service
alternative chosen. One advantage is that sales tax revenues are relatively stable and can be forecast with
a high degree of confidence. In addition, sales tax can be collected efficiently and it allows the
community to generate revenues from visitors to the area. This source would require a vote of the people
to implement. In addition, a sales tax increase could be seen as inequitable to residents not served by
transit. This disadvantage could be offset by the fact that sales taxes could be rebated to incorporated
areas not served by transit. Transit services, moreover, would face competition from other services which
may seek to gain financial support through sales tax.

Traffic Impact Fees

With the growing limitations on state and federal transportation funding, local jurisdictions in California
as well as other states have been implementing traffic impact fee programs on new developments.
Amador County first instituted such an “AB 1600” fee program in 1999, with funds directed to roadway
projects. Other jurisdictions have been increasingly including transit capital needs in such fee programs.

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                              Amador County
Page 134                                                                                Transit Development Plan
For example, programs in both El Dorado County as well as Placer County include funding for transit bus
fleet expansion and transit passenger improvements in their fee programs, justifying their inclusion in the
program on the basis of the fact that public transportation reduces the overall need for other transportation
improvements.

Contract Revenues

Transit systems also often generate income through revenues associated with contracted services. ARTS
currently contracts with the Valley Mountain Regional Center and Blue Mountain Transit to provide
specialized transportation services. ARTS should continue to evaluate requests for service as agencies in
the region wish to expand access to their programs.

Advertising

Many transit systems typically use advertising on their vehicles and at passenger facilities to raise
additional revenue. Advertising on the outside of buses raises the most revenue, followed by advertising
at shelters or on benches. Interior advertisement on buses may bring in significant revenue in urban areas,
but usually is not effective in rural areas. One reason advertising on buses is so attractive to advertisers is
that buses are highly visible and provide a “traveling” advertisement. However, as discussed in the
management chapter of this report, this valuable resource can also be used by the transit system to
“brand” itself. Additional revenue could be generated by advertising the bus system within newspapers
and through community flyers. This method would not only educate residents, but may also bring the bus
system to the attention of visitors.

INCREASED PASSENGER REVENUES
One option to increase funding would be to increase the passenger fares. This option is perceived as being
equitable, in that the direct beneficiaries of transit service are required to pay. In addition, fares can be
very flexible – they can be reduced for portions of the population (such as the elderly and handicapped)
who are least able to pay. When the available supply of transit service is exceeded by demand, fares can
ration service so those who most need the service (and are thus most willing to pay) are provided with
service.

The major disadvantage associated with a fare increase is reduction of the attractiveness and convenience
of transit service. If fares were raised, it is likely ridership would drop, possibly increasing the overall
subsidy required to run the system. This, moreover, would affect those most in need of transit service –
the low-income population who cannot afford a car.

A discussion of potential transit funding sources must include a look at fares. As fares make transit
funding more equitable (those who directly benefit from the service pay at least part of the costs), a fare
system has the advantage of increasing the political acceptability of transit. This advantage, however,
does not consider the substantial benefits provided to others in the community such as commercial
property owners who do not ride the system. In addition, by reducing the attractiveness of transit service,
a fare policy works at cross purposes to many of the stated goals for transit with regard to increase in
mobility and reduction of traffic and parking demand. Nonetheless, fare increases and changes to the
existing fare structure over the long-term should be considered appropriate – particularly in the long-term
– to account for the increasing costs of providing service.




Amador County                                                                  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                 Page 135
Transit systems throughout cities and rural areas often struggle with the issue of establishing an
appropriate, fair, and sustainable fare structure. Determining an appropriate fare structure not only
satisfies the need to meet the minimum required farebox return ratio, but can also encourage passengers to
use the service most appropriate to their needs. Setting fares too low creates the risk of not meeting
mandated farebox ratios and bypassing an important support for transit, while setting fares too high can
discourage transit use, particularly for low-income passengers who may be the most dependent on transit.

Local Fares

Table 30 provides a peer review of fares for similar local rural bus systems in Northern California. As
shown, the average General fare for local routes was $1.14 and $0.55 for Elderly/Disabled passengers.
Amador County’s fares for General and Elderly/Disabled passengers are approximately 87 percent and 91
percent of the average. With the majority (62.5 percent) of the transit providers charging $1.00 for
General passengers and $0.50 for Elderly/Disabled passengers, ARTS is on par with other agencies in
similar areas. However, it may not be out of the question to consider fare increases for one-way tickets in
order to gain more operating revenue. Using an elasticity model, it is estimated that an increase to $1.25
would result in a ridership decrease of 7,170 (6.9 percent). However, the increase in fare revenue from
higher fares would be greater than the loss of revenue due to loss ridership, with a net gain of
approximately $17,000 in fares.

Monthly pass fares were also evaluated for the transit agencies, which ranged from $30.00 at the low end
to $55.00 at the high end. The average cost for a regular monthly pass was $40.50, with Amador County
fares approximately 84 percent of the average. Elderly/disabled monthly pass fares averaged $23.06, with
Amador County fares approximately 74 percent of the average. In both cases, Amador County fares are
well below the average. An increase in ARTS monthly pass fares should be considered, particularly due
to the fact that monthly passes comprise a large majority of riders on specific routes within the system.
An increase from $34.00 to $40.00 for regular passes and from $17.00 to $20.00 for elderly/disabled
passes would still be below the average of similar transit systems.

Commuter Fares

A review of peer transit systems providing commuter transit service into downtown Sacramento is
provided in Table 31. As shown, the ARTS Route X base fare of $3.50 per one-way trip is higher than the
peer average of $3.04, though it is in the middle of the overall range (4th out of 7). As the distance
traveled on Route X is relatively long, however, the fare per mile of $0.08 is relatively low in comparison
with the peer average of $0.11 per mile. When the monthly pass cost is considered, Route X is an even
better “deal,” providing the lowest cost per mile to the passenger of any of the peer systems at $0.05 per
mile.

A fare increase to $4.00 per one way trip (with a corresponding increase in the pass cost to $100) would
still keep ARTS fares lower than the peer average, on a per-mile basis. Based on an elasticity analysis,
this would reduce annual ridership by approximately 300 passenger-trips per year, but yield an overall
increase in fares allocated to ARTS of roughly $1,600.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                           Amador County
Page 136                                                                             Transit Development Plan
  TABLE 30: Rural California Transit Systems Fare Review, 2008
                                                                  Single-Ride                         Monthly Pass
                                                                                Elderly/                         Elderly/
 Transit Provider                                           Regular            Disabled           Regular       Disabled

 Amador Regional Transit System                              $1.00              $0.50             $34.00         $17.00
 Calaveras County Transit                                    $1.50              $0.75             $45.00         $30.00
 Gold Country Stage                                          $1.00              $0.50             $30.00         $15.00
 Sonoma County                                               $1.15              $0.55             $55.00         $27.50
 Lake County Transit                                         $1.00              $0.50             $30.00         $30.00
 Lassen Rural Bus: City Route                                $1.00              $0.50             $40.00         $20.00
 Yuba Sutter Transit                                         $1.00              $0.50             $30.00         $15.00
 Yolo Bus                                                    $1.50              $0.60             $60.00         $30.00


 Average                                                     $1.14              $0.55             $40.50         $23.06
 ARTS Percentage of Average                                   87%                91%               84%            74%


 Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. – Compiled from transit websites, January 2008.



 TABLE 31: Peer Fare Review on Downtown Sacramento Commuter
 Services
                                                  Single                Monthly                      Fare per Mile
Provider                                           Fare                  Pass                     Single    Monthly

Amador Regional Transit(1)                        $3.50        $85 plus $0.25 per trip            $0.08           $0.05
El Dorado County Transit                          $4.00                  $144.00                  $0.09           $0.07
Elk Grove: e-Tran                                 $1.50                   $60.00                  $0.08           $0.07
Placer County Transit, from…
   Colfax, Clipper Gap                            $5.50                  $170.00                  $0.10           $0.07
   Auburn, Penryn, Loomis                         $4.50                  $140.00                  $0.12           $0.09
   Rocklin, Roseville                             $4.00                  $125.00                  $0.17           $0.12
Yolobus                                           $2.00                   $80.00                  $0.10           $0.09
Yuba-Sutter Transit                               $3.50                  $112.00                  $0.08           $0.06
Roseville Transit
   Resident / Reverse                             $3.25                  $110.00                  $0.19           $0.15
   Non-Resident                                   $4.50                  $155.00                  $0.26           $0.21

Peer Average(2)                                   $3.04                  $100.40                  $0.11           $0.08
ARTS Percent of Peer Average(2)                   115%                    96%                      73%             59%
ARTS Ranking(2)                                    4/7                    5/7                      5/7             7/7
Note 1: Amador Regional Transit monthly pass fare per mile assumes 44 trips per month.
Note 2: Assuming "Auburn" for PCT and "Resident" for Roseville Transit.
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Compiled from websites; January 2008

Amador County                                                                              LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                             Page 137
                                       This page left intentionally blank.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                   Amador County
Page 138                                                                     Transit Development Plan
                                                                                               Chapter 10
                                                              Transit Development Plan
This short-range transit plan is intended to guide the improvements of public transit services in Amador
County in FYs 2008/09 through 2012/13. Much of the analysis used as a basis for the plan is presented in
previous chapters; the reader is encouraged to refer to previous chapters for additional information and
discussion regarding the various plan elements presented below.

The various Service, Capital, Institutional and Management, and Financial elements of the Transit
Development Plan are presented in the sections below, followed by an Implementation Plan to guide
transit improvements. Figure 25 illustrates the various service plan elements. Together, these elements
will increase access to transit services, fully meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, and ensure that ARTS services are financially sustainable. In particular, this plan is designed to serve
those residents most dependent upon transit services, while also expanding the ability of ARTS to serve
general public residents and visitors. As a result, the plan will increase the transit program’s ability to
address increases in fuel costs as well as to help to reduce environmental effects of transportation. This
plan is contingent upon many factors, including future funding availability, changes in development and
population, and other factors (notably the cost of gasoline) that could substantially change the demand for
public transit services in the future.

SERVICE PLAN
Implement Jackson/Sutter Hill/Sutter Creek Express and Service Route Plan

Service to the Jackson/Sutter Hill/Sutter Creek area (currently served by Route S) will be expanded to two
routes: the “Service Route,” which provides service at major activity centers in the Jackson and Sutter
Hill/Creek areas, and the “Express Route,” which will offer hourly headways and serve many of the
activity centers and residential areas. Hours of operation will be roughly 8:00 AM through 6:00 PM. The
Service Route will take approximately 2 hours for a roundtrip, while the Express Route will complete a
roundtrip in 1 hour.

Figure 26 presents the recommended routes for both the Service and Express services. Each service will
utilize one bus, providing service to the following major locations:

    Service Route – Major stops in Sutter Hill/Sutter Creek will include the medical clinics on Bryson
    Ave, Sutter Hill Transit Center, The Arc of Amador County, Health and Human Services building,
    Wal-Mart, K-Mart, the Safeway shopping center on Industry Drive and Amador High School. In
    Jackson, major stops will include Petkovich Park, Rollingwood Estates and adjacent developments on
    New York Ranch Road, medical clinics on Court Street, Sutter – Amador Hospital, and Raley’s. Like
    the existing Route S, this route will provide service directly to the front door of many facilities.

    Express Route – Major stops in Sutter Hill/Sutter Creek will include the Post Office (Gopher Flat
    Road), Main Street, the Sutter Hill Transit Center, Academy Way (including The Arc and
    Independence High School, Wal-Mart/K-Mart, Safeway shopping center, and Jackson Gate Road. In
    Jackson, major stops will include Petkovich Park, medical clinics on Court Street, Sutter – Amador
    Hospital, and Raley’s. To speed travel times, this route will largely stay on major streets.




Amador County                                                                LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                               Page 139
                                                                                                                   FIGURE 25




Page 140
                                                                                             Amador County Transit Plan

                                                                                                                                               RIVER PINES
                                                                                                                                                                                                  COOKS STATION


                                                        RANCHO MURIETA
                                       TO SACRAMENTO                                                                                                                                           MONITOR KIRKWOOD
                                                                                                                                  FIDDLETOWN                                                   SERVICE ONE MORE
                                                  X
                                                                                                                                                                                                YEAR-ELIMINATE IF




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                                                                                                                                                                                 NOT EFFECTIVE
                                                                                                                  PLYMOUTH                                               ONLY SERVE
                                                                                                                                                                       BUCKHORN RIDGE
                                                                                                              P
                                                                                                                                                                       ROAD ON REQUEST
                                                                                                                                                                                    MACE MEADOW
                                                                                                                                                             VOLCANO
                                                                                                                                                                                           M
                                                                                                                           AMADOR COUNTY                                  PIONEER
                                                                                                                                                                   V
                                                                                                                                      SERVICE 3 TIMES PINE GROVE
                                                                               ELIMINATE                                                 A DAY TO
                                                                                ROUTE R                                                 MACT CLINIC
                                                                                                 R                    X
                                                                                                                          AMADOR CITY
                                                                                                                             SUTTER CREEK
                                                                                                       SUTTER HILL
                                                                                                     TRANSIT CENTER          SUTTER HILL
                                                                                                                       I
                                                                                             EXPAND ROUTE I
                                                                                              SCHEDULE E              C
                                                                                                                              P            M
                                                                                                                                  V
                                                                              IONE                                                    S                                         SCALE
                                                                                         I
                                                                                                                                                                            0              3
                                                                                                                                      JACKSON
                                                                                                      ESTABLISH EXPRESS/
                                                                                                      SERVICE ROUTE PLAN                                                        IN MILES
                                                                           BUENA VISTA
                                                                                                                                                                                     LEGEND
                                                                                                       OTHER PLAN ELEMENTS
                                                                                                                                                                           LAKES
                                                                                               * RESERVE-A-RIDE PROGRAM                                                    COUNTY BOUNDARY
                                                                               C               * TRANSPORTATION REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM                                      TOWN
                                                                                               * IMPROVE ADA POLICY                                                        BUS ROUTES
                                                                         CAMANCHE
                                                                                               * LIMITED SOCIAL SERVICE PACKAGE PROGRAM                                    M-JACKSON/MACE MEADOW
                                                                                               * SPECIAL EVENT SHUTTLES                                                    X-AMADOR SACRAMENTO EXPRESS
                                                                                               * NEW VEHICLES                                                              C-SUTTER HILL/IONE/CAMANCHE
                                                                                               * STOP IMPROVEMENTS                                                         V-SUTTER HILL/PINE GROVE/VOLCANO
                                                                                               * ADOPT GOALS, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS                                        R-IONE/PLYMOUTH
                                                                                                     & UNMET NEEDS DEFINITION                                              S-JACKSON/SUTTER CREEK SHUTTLE
                                                                                               * MARKETING IMPROVEMENTS                                                    P-JACKSON/PLYMOUTH        ON CALL
                                                                                               * ARTS MARKETING/SPECIAL PROJECTS POSITION                                  I-SUTTER HILL/IONE




                                       AMADORPLAN
                                              TRANSPORTATION
                                              CONSULTANTS, INC.




Transit Development Plan
          Amador County
                                                                                    FIGURE 26
                                Sutter Creek - Jackson Fixed/Service Route Alternative
                                                      AT      POST OFFICE
                                                    FL
                                               ER
                                             PH
                                           GO



                                                       MA
                                                             SUTTER CREEK
                                                        IN
                                                  49     ST



                                                                                                                  104



                                             BRYSON DR

                                                      O O TE
                SUTTER HILL                         OR M N
              TRANSIT CEHNTER
                                       S
                                  BOWER




                        ARC




                                                                                                           RD
                            D




                                                                                                         TE
                            R




                                                                                                       GA
                        E




                                                                                                    ON
                        G




                                                                                                  KS
                    ID




                                                                                                AC
                    R




                                                                                               J

                                   HEALTH &         SAFEWAY
                                HUMAN SERVICES       CENTER

              104
                                                                                                                                           ROLLINGWOOD
                                                                                                                                             ESTATES
                                                                                        M IPOSA ST




                                                                  K-MART                                49
                                                                                                         88
                                                                                                                                                                  CH
                                                                                         AR




                                                                                                                                                            AN
                                                                                                                                                           RK R




                                     WAL-MART
                                                                                                                                                                   COURT ST.
                                                                                                                                                       NEW YO




                                                                                                                                                                    MEDICAL        88
                                                                        HIGH
                                                                                   TL




                                                                                                                                                                    OFFICES
                                                                       SCHOOL
                                                                              G NAU




                                                                                                                                                                                SUTTER
                                                                            AR O




                                                                                                                                                                               AMADOR
                                                                                                                               MA ST




                                                                                                                                                 T                             HOSPITAL
                                                                                                                                               TS
                                                                                                                                 IN




                                                                                                                          ST                 UR
                                                                                                                HOFFMAN                    CO

                                                                                                                                                                  JACKSON
                                                                                                                                            T

                                                                                                                  PETROVICH                                 BR
                                                                                                                    PARK
                                                                                                                                       N




                                                                                                                                                                  OA
                                                                                                                                                                       DW
                                                                                                                                                                         AY           PL
                                                                                                          LEGEND                                                                   ON
                                                                                                                                                                                INT
                                                                                                          URBAN AREA                                                          CL
                                                    SCALE                                                 STREETS
                                              0                 .3                                        HIGHWAYS                                    RD
AMADORFIXED




                                                                                                                                                  R
                                                                                                          EXPRESS ROUTE                         BA
                                                    IN MILES                                                                                H
                                                                                                          SERVICE ROUTE                   NC                             49
                                                                                                                                       FRE    RALEY’S
         TRANSPORTATION
         CONSULTANTS, INC.




Amador County                                                                                                                  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                                                                 Page 141
Final route design will require more detailed evaluation of bus stop and routing opportunities on a site-by-
site basis. Designating stops directly along SR 49/88 will require a site-by-site evaluation of available
pavement and shoulder width, in addition to any existing pull-outs, as it would not be acceptable for
transit vehicles to block travel lanes. Final schedules will strive to provide timed transfers to other ARTS
routes as well as Calaveras Transit service.

Like the other existing ARTS deviated fixed-routes, service will also be available on demand to any
location within a half-mile (for general public) and three-fourths of a mile (for persons qualifying under
the Americans With Disabilities Act) distance of either route. In order to maintain efficiency and provide
a better service for the general public, all deviations will be served by the Service Route bus.

This service plan will have a number of benefits, including:

    Substantially reduce in-vehicle travel times. For instance, a trip between southern Jackson and Sutter
    Hill, which currently requires a passenger to be on the bus for roughly 45 minutes, will instead be
    served in 20 minutes.

    More frequent and easy to use service. The total number of runs per day between Sutter Hill and
    Jackson in each direction will increase from 6 to 16, while the runs between Sutter Hill and Sutter
    Creek will increase from 6 to 10. Service will be provided at least hourly to most locations, rather
    than roughly every 1 hour 45 minutes. Service will be provided on “clock headways” (at the same
    time past the hour throughout the day), which is easier for passengers to learn and remember.

    Service to new areas, including Argonaut High School, on an ongoing basis.

In particular, this plan element will make transit service in the Sutter Creek – Jackson area more attractive
to the general public residents of the area, as well as to visitors.

ARTS also operates two additional runs per day as part of Route S (S2a and S4a) which provide
additional service. It is the intent of this plan to maintain the use of these two routes for their current
schedules and not to alter them. It should be noted on the schedule that a 10:23 AM connection to
Calaveras Transit is available at Raley’s from this route (on request). ARTS will also strive to coordinate
services with Calaveras Transit, and work with Calaveras County to improve schedules to better serve
commuters between the two counties.

This service element is planned for implementation in FY 2009/10. While it is a key priority, time will be
required to develop specific schedules and bus stop locations, as well as obtain necessary additional
funding.

Eliminate Route R

Route R is the least effective regularly scheduled ARTS route, only 3.6 passenger-trips per vehicle-hour –
requiring approximately $18 in public subsidy per one-way passenger-trip. This route is also not
consistent with the overall ARTS service plan, as it is the only route in the system that does not originate
or end in Sutter Hill, but rather travels between Ione and Plymouth. Given the highly specialized nature of
the route (developed to specifically serve clients of the FLC), the route does not serve a large majority of
the transit population. For these reasons, Route R service will be eliminated, beginning July 1, 2008.
Eliminating Route R will also provide additional $44,800 in annual funding necessary to ARTS for more
productive routes and services.



LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                             Amador County
Page 142                                                                               Transit Development Plan
Service between Plymouth and Ione will still be available via Routes I and P, though not at schedules that
meet the specific needs of the few individuals consistently using Route R. Options to make up the service
that will no longer be offered to the FLC have been discussed, including providing private vans to the
FLC who can provide the service themselves.

Revise and Expand Route I Schedule to Better Serve a Wider Range of Passengers

While the existing Route I service between Sutter Hill and Ione is not scheduled to serve commuters or
students, this study has identified demand for such service which can be expected to grow as auto use gets
more expensive. Therefore, several changes will be implemented on Route I to better serve passengers:

    The second run on Route I (a 10:00 AM departure from Sutter Hill, returning at 10:55 AM) will be
    eliminated. Ridership is currently poor (approximately four passengers per day), and eliminating the
    route will free up approximately $18,100 in funding for other ARTS service improvements.

    In order to serve commuters and students traveling from Ione to Sutter Hill, a morning route is
    recommended. The run will begin in Sutter Hill at 7:00 AM, which would bring Ione passengers back
    to Sutter Hill by 8:00 AM.

    It is also recommended that an evening run be implemented on Route I, beginning in Sutter Hill at
    5:00 PM and arriving in Ione at approximately 5:20 PM. This route would provide a later option for
    students and would coincide with typical work hours as well.

    The route will serve major stops in the Sutter Hill area (including employment, commercial and
    institutional activity centers) as well as schools as warranted by ridership needs. Actual stops along
    the route will be considered in more detail when a new schedule is developed for the ARTS system.

By eliminating the second run on Route I, the net increase in funding needed to expand the usefulness of
Route I to a wider potential transit market is relatively low, totaling approximately $18,000. Overall,
these service changes are expected to increase Route I ridership by 1,600 passengers per year initially,
growing as employment and housing along the service corridor increases.

Monitor the Kirkwood Skier Service in the 2008/09 Ski Season

In its first year of operation recently concluded, the Kirkwood Skier Service did not perform well during
the first year of operation. While the program had very little ridership, it is recommended that the
Kirkwood Skier Service be operated during the next ski season (2008/09), with its performance (ridership
and revenue) monitored. If the service does not meet the following performance standards, the service
should be eliminated:

    Service Efficiency: At least an 8 percent operating farebox return ratio should be attained, along with
    a maximum of $18.00 in marginal operating subsidy per passenger-trip.

    Service Effectiveness: At least 3.0 passenger-trips per vehicle service hour should be attained. Note
    that these hours do not include driver layover time at Kirkwood.

The service effectiveness standard should be applied based upon the actual number of passenger-trips
carried by the service (rather than the number of fares purchased), as it is the purpose of a public transit
program to actually carry passengers, and as the service requires substantial public funding even if fares
are purchased for trips not taken.


Amador County                                                                 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                Page 143
A significant issue associated with the lack of ridership on the service was related to marketing. The
service was marketed through some advertisements in local newspapers. It is possible that through
increased marketing efforts, ridership and revenue would be increased. Local hotels along Highway 88
currently provide lodging for many winter visitors of Kirkwood. By providing marketing materials at the
front desk (to be handed out as guests check-in) or leaving flyers in the lobby, visitors will be educated on
the service and would be provided with an alternate to using their private vehicles.

Establish Service to the MACT Clinic

The MACT Clinic, located on New York Ranch Road near the Jackson Rancheria casino, is a health
clinic that serves the Native American population and low-income residents, and is the only Denti-Cal
provider in the county. Thus, there is important transit service demand generated by this location. The
plan recommends initiating three runs per day to the clinic, as follows:

    New runs should be provided between Sutter Hill and the clinic at approximately 9:30 AM and 3:30
    PM. Specific times in these periods should be identified that fit well with driver schedules. From
    Sutter Hill, the bus should travel via Ridge Road and down New York Ranch Road.

    Service to the clinic should be provided on the M4 run of Route M (leaving Sutter Hill at 12:49 PM)
    as an on-call stop during either the outbound or inbound direction. The bus would travel up Dalton
    Road from Highway 88, turn on Dusty Lane/Miwuk Drive, and turn again onto New York Ranch
    Road before entering the clinic.

It is recommended that all service to the MACT Clinic be by requests, in accordance with ARTS current
on-call policy. Because one-way trips would take approximately 30 minutes from Sutter Hill and 12
minutes off SR 88 (via Route M), this will minimize both the costs of additional service to ARTS, as well
as the delays to other passengers required to serve the Clinic. This service is estimated to increase
marginal costs by roughly $11,000 per year.

Improve the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Policy

The current provision of one-half mile route deviations on local fixed-routes is recommended to be
expanded to three-quarters of a mile, for ADA eligible passengers only. Passengers will be required to
present identification cards proving their eligibility, produced by and available at the ARTS offices.

In addition, the ARTS Board will adopt a policy designating the Transit Manager as the ADA
Administrator. Any decisions made by this Administrator could be appealed to the ARTS Board. Among
other duties, the position would include the creation of ADA eligibility standards and policies, as well as
assisting with the determination of eligible passengers.

Consider a Daffodil Hill Shuttle Service

The spring months in Amador County generate a lot of visitors, and in particular, Daffodil Hill outside of
the community of Volcano. In an effort to ease parking and traffic issues associated with this attraction,
ARTS should work with others in the community (such as the Amador Council of Tourism) to implement
a seasonal shuttle that provides rides from the Park-and-Ride lot at SR 88/Volcano Road to Daffodil Hill,
or the Boitano Parking Lot on Gopher Flat Road in Sutter Creek. This service could help address the
parking and traffic problems at the height of the daffodil blooming season, and encourage additional
visitor activity in the region. It is assumed for this plan that funding for the service would be obtained
from new funding sources, such as from event organizers or by applying for new grant programs (such as
AB2766).

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                             Amador County
Page 144                                                                               Transit Development Plan
Encourage Use of Foothill Rideshare

To expand opportunities for commuters in and out of the Sacramento Valley Region (including Stockton),
and to provide alternate means of transportation, it is recommended that ARTS work with the Foothill
Rideshare program to encourage the use of the service.

Foothill Rideshare recently was awarded an AB 2766 grant from to the Amador Air District for a vanpool
subsidy program, utilizing AB 2766 funding. The grant provides $10,000 in vanpool subsidies beginning
in June 2008 ($2,000 per vanpool for up to five new vanpools), which will help to reduce the financial
liability of new vanpools should members drop out. The following provides more specific information
regarding the subsidy distribution and structure:

    Each vanpool would receive up to $300, maximum, based on $150 per vacant seat (up to two seats).

    The monies would be paid directly to the vanpool provider.

    Subsidies would be available for up to 5 eligible vanpools, up to 12 of the first 24 months of
    operation, and up to 3 months per vacancy.

As a means to encourage the use of the service, the program also provides for an incentive of a $200 gas
card to each newly formed vanpool at the end of their first year of operation. ARTS and the Foothill
Rideshare program should continue to offer these types of incentives to interested riders and drivers. In
order to increase awareness and ridership, new vanpools will be promoted through advertising, public
awareness campaigns, and employer jobsite visits.

Reserve-A-Ride Taxicab Subsidy Program

As part of this plan, a “Reserve-A-Ride” program will be instituted to provide Saturday and weekday
evening service (Wednesday evening only, at least to start) through a private service subsidy program.
This will provide mobility options for travel in periods when direct ARTS service would not be cost-
effective. As detailed in Appendix B, the initial parameters of this program will be as follows:

    Reserve-A-Ride will only be available to those defined as “transportation disadvantaged,” defined as
    persons that do not have access to a private vehicle or a family member that could otherwise provide
    the trip, due to age, disability or income level.

    Service will be provided on Saturday from 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM and Wednesday from 6:00 PM to
    10:00 PM.

    Service is available in all areas of Amador County that are within one-mile of an existing ARTS
    route, with the exception of Route X.

    Passengers requesting service must make reservations at least 24-hours in advance. Requests made
    after this time may be granted, however service cannot be guaranteed. Further, if a specific trip
    request cannot be served at a requested time but capacity is available on the same day, alternative
    service times will be offered. Passengers can make standing orders, but these will be limited so the
    service is accessible to other passengers.

    Fares are based on the distance of the service requested. Fares will also depend on the specific time
    required to serve each trip. Approximate fares for one-way service to and from the Sutter Hill/Sutter
    Creek/Jackson Rancheria area will be $4.75, while service from Camanche to Pioneer/Mace

Amador County                                                               LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                              Page 145
    Meadows will require a fare of $13.00 for a one-way trip. Any additional passengers will be charged
    a flat fare of $2.00 per one-way trip, and personal care attendants with ADA passengers will be
    carried free of charge. Table 32 shows the estimated Reserve-A-Ride passenger fares. While these
    fares are relatively high compared to public transit service, they represent the minimum required to
    attain the necessary 10 percent farebox return ratio, given the costs of the service contract.

To ensure accurate records of information, drivers must complete daily forms that identify the date, time
of departure from the operations base, time returning to the base, meal breaks, and detailed passenger trip
information. This information will be used by the provider/contractor to complete monthly service
summaries, with will be provided to ARTS on a monthly basis for review and payment.




TABLE 32: Estimated Reserve-A-Ride Fares
    Per One-Way Trip
                                                             Trip Destination Zone
                                                  Sutter Hill /
                                                 Sutter Creek /                                                 Pioneer /
                                                   Jackson /                    Shenandoah     Pine Grove /       Mace
                     Camanche           Ione      Rancheria        Plymouth       Valley         Volcano        Meadows


      Camanche         $7.50           $8.50         $7.50          $8.50            $9.75        $11.25         $13.00




         Ione          $8.50           $5.50         $5.50          $7.50            $9.00        $9.25          $11.25
T
r
i    Sutter Hill /
p   Sutter Creek /
                       $7.50           $5.50         $4.75          $6.00            $7.50        $6.50          $8.50
      Jackson /
O    Rancheria
r
i
      Plymouth         $8.50           $7.50         $6.00          $6.00            $8.00        $9.25          $11.25
g
i
n
     Shenandoah
                       $9.75           $9.00         $7.50          $8.00            $7.50        $10.75         $12.75
Z      Valley
o
n
e    Pine Grove /
                       $11.25          $9.25         $6.50          $9.25         $10.75          $6.50          $9.25
       Volcano


      Pioneer /
        Mace           $13.00          $11.25        $8.50          $11.25        $12.75          $9.25          $8.50
      Meadows
    Note: Actual fare may vary up to 20 percent due to the time required to serve a specific trip.
    Additional passengers carried between identical points at identical times (within the capacity of the vehicle) will be
    charged a fare of $2.00 per one-way trip. Personal care attendants needed for ADA eligible passengers to make their trip
    are carried free of charge.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                                       Amador County
Page 146                                                                                         Transit Development Plan
This service is initially funded at $40,000 per year, which is forecast to be sufficient to serve at least
1,100 passenger-trips per year. As a new and innovative program, this service is expected to change as
actual ridership patterns are determined, and success will rely on a strong spirit of cooperation between
ARTS, the contractor, and the passengers.

If the Reserve-A-Ride program does not come to fruition or proves to be financially unsuccessful, ARTS
could alternatively implement Saturday service. The cost of providing Saturday service on local routes for
nine hours per day would be approximately $155,000 per year.

Social Services Package Transportation

To make services more available to the outlying communities of Amador County and the transit
dependent population in these areas, a package transportation program will be offered for social service
programs. ARTS will identify specific runs on which deliveries would be made, given the available
service time. Deliveries should be focused on inter-communities runs, such as those on Routes I, M, P, or
V. As this service will be provided on runs also carrying passengers and as the core purpose of ARTS is
passenger transportation, this service should be limited to those deliveries that can be made without
significantly delaying passengers or requiring a change in routes or schedules. As a planning guideline, it
is recommended that deliveries should only be provided that require no more than two minutes to serve.

Revise Route M to Consistently Serve SR 88 in Buckhorn

The current configuration of Route M requires buses (with the exception of two runs per day) to travel
down Buckhorn Ridge Road for a majority of the route rather than SR 88. Due to the low number of
passengers boarding or alighting along Buckhorn Ridge Road, the additional running time needed to serve
this road, and the benefits of providing a consistent service in both directions, Route M will be revised to
use SR 88 except when deviation requests are received. With the existing route deviation policy in the
ARTS system, buses will still be able to pickup passengers along Buckhorn Ridge Road, provided they
call ahead and schedule the ride. By making this change, the buses will travel down more accessible
roads, thus potentially requiring a shorter in-vehicle travel time, and will serve the more commercial
highway corridor it is currently missing on some runs.

Monitor and Track On-Time Performance and Deviation Requests

With growth in traffic and passenger activity (particularly with wheelchair passengers that need additional
time for boarding and alighting), the current schedules do not always provide sufficient running time to
provide on-time service. Information provided by ARTS personnel suggests that runs, particularly on
Route S and Route M, are often not on-time due to significant deviation requests and a large number of
passengers requiring assistance with wheelchairs or bicycles. On-time performance standards define a
“late” bus as arriving 5 or minutes later than the scheduled time. It appears that it is not uncommon for
buses in the ARTS system to be up to 10 or more minutes late. Ideally, buses should arrive at the stops
approximately 2 minutes later than the scheduled time, as this allows for persons who may get to the stop
just passed the schedule time to still meet the bus, while not creating a stressful environment for the
drivers. However, consistently running late makes service less attractive to potential passengers,
particularly commuters and students on a set schedule (which this transit plan is intended to better serve).

To address and alleviate this issue, ARTS should track the on-time performance of the buses, including
the number of deviations requested by a run, number of wheelchair passengers, and the average time
required to load the wheelchairs. Should the information show significant or consistent delays on specific
routes, ARTS should revise the schedules to allow for adequate time in between the scheduled stops.


Amador County                                                                LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                               Page 147
Further, runs with multiple deviations that result in late service on a consistent basis should be
reevaluated to see if additional time needs to be built into the schedule, if the number of deviations needs
to be limited, or if a deviation area needs to become a permanent scheduled stop.

Implement a Transportation Reimbursement Program

This plan recommends that the Transportation Reimbursement Program be implemented in FY 2009/10,
as a means to provide alternative transportation options for persons that are unable to transport
themselves. Residents/riders would be required to meet criteria developed by ARTS and the SSTAC. This
element will be contingent on obtaining adequate revenues.

The program should follow the original structure, as presented to the ACTC during an unmet needs
hearing in 2007, whereby gas vouchers will be provided to qualified participants (per criteria already
developed) based on mileage estimates. All reimbursement claims will be submitted to the ACTC, which
will be reviewed on a monthly basis and submitted on a quarterly basis.

Initial funding requests of $20,000 made by SSTAC were granted and would be available for funding
during the 2009/10 FY. These costs include administrative costs and working capital, as well as the
program reimbursements. Any reimbursement funds not spent during the fiscal year will be returned to
the program, provided the budget is not increased the following year.

Implementation of the program will depend on ARTS funding availability and the capacity of ARTS staff
time for program coordination. It is likely that a new staff position, either directly with ARTS or with the
ACTC, would need to be developed that would coordinate and oversee the program. In turn, this would
require additional funding. Therefore, it is also recommended that ARTS and the ACTC follow the
recommendation of a new marketing/special projects position, as further described in the
Institutional/Management Plan chapter of this report.

CAPITAL PLAN
Vehicles

This transit plan does not require expansion of the fleet. However, both improvements to existing vehicles
and replacement of older vehicles are needed.

Vehicle Replacement

The replacement of vehicles is typically dependent upon the “useful life” of the vehicle, which is defined
by Caltrans as 7 years or 200,000 miles (medium-sized, medium-duty transit buses, approximately 30’) or
5 years or 150,000 miles (medium-sized, light-duty transit buses approximately 25-35’).

Upon review of the vehicle fleet information, six vehicles are recommended for replacement within the
next five years:

    There are four 1998 Aerotech 240’s (Bus numbers 14 – 17) that warrant replacement. Based on the
    current mileage (as of April 2008) of the vehicles, which range from 283,185 to 351,953 miles, the
    vehicles have an additional operating life of approximately two years, provided the existing
    maintenance practices continue, which would allow for replacement in FY 2010/11.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                             Amador County
Page 148                                                                               Transit Development Plan
    The fleet also includes two 1999 Aerotech vehicles that would warrant replacement in FY 2011/12.
    Mileage for these buses totaled 261,269 miles (Bus 18) and 259,744 (Bus 19) at the end of April
    2008.

Replacement by newer vehicles would further ARTS progress to meeting CARB requirements, as
vehicles with model years 2007 and later are designed to meet the emissions standards. As ARTS replaces
vehicles, they should consider purchasing the newer diesel or gas models.

Improvements to Meet California Air Resources Board Emission Standards

As discussed in Chapter 9, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has adopted new requirements to
reduce emissions generated by diesel or alternative fueled transit vehicles. By December 31, 2007, ARTS
was required to reduce particulate matter emissions by 40 percent from baseline (established as of January
1, 2005), and Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) could be no more than 3.2 grams per brake horse-power hour (g/bhp-
hr). Further, by December 31, 2010, particulate matter emissions must be reduced by 80 percent from
baseline and NOx must be no more than 2.4 g/bhp-hr.

The ARTS fleet includes twelve revenue vehicles, of which two are gas powered and therefore exempt
from the CARB requirements. The remaining ten vehicles are diesel powered and must comply with the
emissions reduction requirements. Table 33 shows the fleet vehicles subject to these requirements and the
proposed plan to comply with requirements. As of May 2008, none of the vehicles in the ARTS fleet have
been retrofitted to comply with CARB requirements. However, by June 12, 2008, five of the vehicles will
be fitted with particulate traps to meet the 40 percent reduction standard. These vehicles include two 2003
32-passenger buses, two 2003 20-passenger buses, and one 1999 20-passenger bus.

The remaining five revenue vehicles that are subject to the year 2010 CARB requirements will be
replaced, as discussed above. If this replacement does not occur, ARTS will need to retrofit with
particulate traps to meet the December 31, 2010 requirements.

Improve Bus Stops

To increase visibility of the bus stops and shelters, as well as make transit stops more attractive to
potential and existing riders, the following bus stop improvements are recommended:

    Provide benches at all scheduled stops that serve 5 to 10 passengers per day (estimated to be
    warranted at 18 existing stops). For stops service 10 or more passengers per day, bus shelters should
    be installed (requiring an additional shelter at one location). In order to determine the specific
    locations for new benches and shelters, ARTS should monitor passenger activity on each route. Those
    stops meeting the above discussed criteria should be fitted with the appropriate passenger amenities.

    Provide bus shelters, benches, and signage at the Martell Wal-Mart (shelter and bench) and in River
    Pines (bench only), per the ARTS Capital Improvement Program recommendation.

    At bus stops that serve 5 or more passengers per day (approximately 38 locations) detailed transit
    schedules and route maps should be provided. These should be contained in Plexiglas to prevent
    damage to the information. While it would be ideal to provide this information at all stops along the
    routes, it is cost prohibitive, as all physical schedules and maps would need to be changed out every
    time a route is revised or altered to keep all information accurate and up to date. The cost per stop is
    estimated at roughly $100.


Amador County                                                                 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                Page 149
Page 150
                                       TABLE 33: CARB Compliance Schedule for ARTS Transit Fleet
                                                                                                                                   Fuel          Compliance with CARB
                                       Bus #     Year     Mileage Apr 2008                     Make                     Capacity   Type             Requirements

                                                                                     Chevrolet - Suburban 4x4
                                         1       2004                                                                    6 pax     Gas                    Exempt
                                                                                      (non-revenue vehicle)

                                         2       2003           184241                    Glaval Concorde                32 pax    Diesel    New Particulate Trap - June 2008




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                         3       2003           184311                    Glaval Concorde                32 pax    Diesel    New Particulate Trap - June 2008

                                                                                     Chevrolet - Suburban 4x4
                                         9       1980                                                                    8 pax     Gas                    Exempt
                                                                                      (non-revenue vehicle)
                                                                                                                                            Replace or New Particulate Trap - by
                                         14      1998           299947             Ford - El Dorado, Aerotech 240        20 pax    Diesel
                                                                                                                                                    December 31, 2010
                                                                                                                                            Replace or New Particulate Trap - by
                                         15      1998           310161             Ford - El Dorado, Aerotech 240        20 pax    Diesel
                                                                                                                                                    December 31, 2010
                                                                                                                                            Replace or New Particulate Trap - by
                                         16      1998           283185             Ford - El Dorado, Aerotech 240        20 pax    Diesel
                                                                                                                                                    December 31, 2010
                                                                                                                                            Replace or New Particulate Trap - by
                                         17      1998           351953             Ford - El Dorado, Aerotech 240        20 pax    Diesel
                                                                                                                                                    December 31, 2010
                                                                                                                                            New Particulate Trap - by December
                                         18      1999           261269            Ford E450 - El Dorado, Aerotech        20 pax    Diesel
                                                                                                                                                         31, 2010

                                         19      1999           259755            Ford E450 - El Dorado, Aerotech        20 pax    Diesel    New Particulate Trap - June 2008

                                         27      2003           138614               Ford - Goshen GC2 Diesel            20 pax    Diesel    New Particulate Trap - June 2008

                                         28      2003           159972               Ford - Goshen GC2 Diesel            20 pax    Diesel    New Particulate Trap - June 2008

                                         29      2006            50786          Chevrolet - El Dorado Arrow Elite 320    28 pax    Gas                    Exempt

                                         30      2006            36386          Chevrolet - El Dorado Arrow Elite 320    28 pax    Gas                    Exempt

                                       Source: Amador Regional Transit System




Transit Development Plan
          Amador County
In addition to the above recommendations, ARTS will also conduct a study to identify the appropriate
location for a stop near Main St. and California St. in Jackson. The current location does not meet ADA
requirements and is an potentially hazardous and difficult location for loading and unloading of
passengers, particularly those with wheelchairs. The new location should provide space for a bus to pull
out of the travel lane and not impede traffic flow, and should be ADA compliant. It is estimated that this
would cost approximately $10,000.

Sutter Hill Transit Center

An important element in the ARTS system is the planned Sutter Hill Transit Center. To be located on a
parcel along Valley View Way, this center will provide a safe and attractive location for transfers between
buses, for additional park-and-ride activity, for driver breaks, and for pedestrian/bicycle access. It will
also substantially increase the “presence” of the public transit program in the community. This facility
may also be used for visitor information services. One intriguing opportunity with this facility is to use it
for short-term rentals of bicycles and/or small electric vehicles for local circulation in the Jackson/Sutter
Hill/Sutter Creek area. Current cost estimates for this facility are on the order of $5.3 million, depending
on final design. The degree to which the full project can be completed within this TDP plan period will
depend upon the ultimate cost, as well as available funding.

Provide an On-Board Surveillance System

ARTS will install a mobile video surveillance system to enhance security for passengers, employees, and
the general public. The system will be located on all commuter and local route buses. Video surveillance
technology on buses can be valuable in litigious situations and risk management. The visibility provided
by onboard cameras gives the actionable intelligence required to ensure proper operation of the vehicles
and confirmation that policies and procedures are being followed. In addition, the transit system has an
unbiased “witness” to capture any incidents that occur on the vehicle. Cameras on buses also tend to make
passengers feel safer. Installing cameras can help in addressing repeat customer offenses or misbehavior,
resulting in improved comfort for all passengers. This system is estimated to cost $145,000.

Provide an Automatic Vehicle Location System

An Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) system will be implemented on the ARTS service, consisting of
tracking units installed on all buses, a centralized computer system in the ARTS dispatch center, and
displays of “real time” transit information in key locations such as the Sutter Hill Transit Center. This
AVL system will provide the following benefits to ARTS:

    Provide better “real time” information on vehicle location, in order to allow more efficient transfers
    of passengers between the individual routes.
    Reduce driver inattention due to the need to make radio calls.
    Provide emergency responders with more accurate information regarding transit vehicle location.
    Provide more effective dispatching of transit vehicles as part of an emergency evacuation.
    Provide management with better information regarding on-time performance.

Implemented on all vehicles, this system is estimated to cost on the order of $250,000.




Amador County                                                                LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                               Page 151
INSTITUTIONAL/MANAGEMENT PLAN
Increased ARTS Role as Coordinated Transportation Service Agency

As the CTSA for Amador County, ARTS should continue to maintain current coordination efforts,
including the administration of SSTAC and the contract arrangements with the Valley Mountain Regional
Center. In order to increase their role, ARTS should consider developing coordination programs with
various social service agencies. These may include coordinating their services by providing gas vouchers
and increasing transit service marketing and education at social service agencies, including tips for using
the services. The organization and management of transportation reimbursement programs by ARTS
should also be considered, which could be made available to these agencies.

Revise Unmet Needs Definition

In order to make the unmet needs definition more clear and consistent, the following changes should be
made:

    The performance standards identified in Subparagraph B tie the definition to the existing systemwide
    average. The farebox return ratio of some services funded through contracts (Routes C and V),
    however, are very high. The subparagraph should at a minimum be revised to read “…farebox return
    ratio (excluding contract revenues)…”

    Comparing 80 percent of the current systemwide values for these two performance measures against
    the current routes (excluding the contract revenues) as shown in Table 15, the passengers per hour
    standard of 5.8 is not met by Route P (at 4.9) or Route R (at 3.3). The existing farebox return ratio
    standard inferred by this definition (5.6 percent) is also not met by Route P (4.4 percent) or Route R
    (1.6 percent). Depending on the decisions made as part of this TDP study, the Commission should
    review whether it is appropriate to identify unmet needs standards that are not attained by existing
    services.

    Subparagraph F identifies a performance measure based on cost per passenger-trip. However, the
    important factor with regards to public TDA funds is the subsidy per passenger-trip. As an example,
    the ARTS Route TM service currently has a high cost per passenger-trip, but (as the service is funded
    by VMRC) requires virtually no TDA subsidy.

    Other jurisdictions do not identify a specific means of estimating operating costs (“based on an
    average operating cost of $80 per hour”). In addition to the fact that inflation requires this value to be
    updated each year, other jurisdictions recognize that it is not possible to accurately estimate costs for
    services based upon a simple total allocated cost per vehicle-hour of service. As an example, a taxi
    subsidy program’s costs would be defined by the costs of the contract service provider, rather than the
    public transit program. Instead, the operating costs should be estimated on a case-by-case basis. LSC
    would recommend changing this portion of the definition to “The subsidy required to provide the
    proposed service does not exceed 10.66 dollars per passenger as calculated by ARTS staff.”

It should be noted that, under the TDA, the issue of how “unmet needs” are defined is irrelevant once all
funds available for transit purposes are used for that specific purpose (rather than being used for “streets
and roads”). In fact, if no claims are considered under Article 8 (“streets and roads”) the entire unmet
needs hearing process is not required. Instead, when all available funds are being used for public
transportation, the adopted local transit performance standards are used to make funding allocation
decisions.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                             Amador County
Page 152                                                                               Transit Development Plan
Adopt Goals, Performance Measures, and Standards

As a growing and improving transit agency and service, it is important for ARTS to establish goals and
objectives in order to gain success. These goals and objectives should be written, with bi-annual reviews
to determine if goals and objectives are being met. Goals establish general direction for policies and
operation. Objectives are more detailed steps, which are typically quantifiable measures as to the
effectiveness of the individual policies in achieving the goals.

Appropriate goals, performance measures, and standards are described in Chapter 5 (Amador County
Goals and Objectives Analysis). Benefits of establishing and maintaining goals and standards are as
follows:

    Ensures that the agency’s future actions are in keeping with adopted long-term community strategies,
    rather than being driven by incremental decision-making.

    Allows a discussion of community values regarding transit issues that is at a higher level of
    discussion than is possible when considering case-by-case individual issues.

    Provides a clear indication to other parties (such as other jurisdictions or private organizations) as to
    the intentions of the transit agency with respect to planned services.

    Helps ensure that day-to-day decision-making at the staff level reflects the values of the community.

    Provides a yardstick by which to measure the success of the plan or program.

Five major goals are identified: a service efficiency goal, service effectiveness goal, service quality goal,
accessibility goal, and planning and management goal. These should be applied to local and commuter
routes, however some of the contract routes that are available to the general public are to be considered
local routes (i.e. Route V and Route C).

To enforce these standards, ARTS should monitor the routes performance on a regular basis to determine
where deficiencies occur. If routes do not meet the goals for a given period of time, serious consideration
should be given to the elimination or revision of routes to ensure productive and cost effective transit
services.

Marketing Improvements

Improve Service Quality

To help solve problems related to transit perception, such as inadequate passenger amenities, on-time
performance issues, and in-vehicle travel time issues, marketing efforts must be conducted regularly. To
address these, service monitoring techniques are recommended to be performed on an on-going basis.

ARTS should produce monthly reports with statistical data. Monitoring the data through field checks and
careful review often takes as much as 20 percent of the administrator’s time. To ensure optimal
operations, the following data categories are required for careful supervision of services, and should be
collected on a regular ongoing basis: (1) on-time performance, (2) annual Passenger Survey, and (3)
boarding and alighting counts. More details on each of these elements is presented in Chapter 5
(Institutional and Marketing Alternatives).



Amador County                                                                 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                Page 153
Marketing for New Services and Service Changes

The recommended service alternatives presented in the beginning of the chapter will require expanded
marketing efforts to ensure proper education of important changes, as well as increasing overall
awareness of the transit system to the residents. It is important that ARTS begin marketing for these new
services, include the new Jackson/Sutter Hill/Sutter Creek Service and Express Routes, the Taxi Subsidy
Program, expansion of Route I, and the new service to the MACT Clinic. Prior to the changes being
made, ARTS should advertise these service alterations by:

    Creating radio advertisements announcing changes to the transit system, informing listeners that
    additional information can be obtained on the ARTS website, by calling ARTS or by stopping by the
    ARTS offices.

    Advertisements should be submitted to local newspapers, such as the Amador Ledger-Dispatch,
    identifying the changes to be made. The ARTS website and phone number should also be listed as
    reference for more information.

    If possible and funding permitted, develop television ads for the local cable access stations to be run
    during peak hours.

    Announcements at the Senior Center, The Arc of Amador County, medical facilities and other social
    services programs should be made to inform transit riders of the changes. Further, posters/flyers
    should also be hung at businesses, schools, colleges, and residential complexes. Informational
    materials should also be given to members of SSTAC.

In addition to these necessary service-specific efforts, ongoing marketing using these resources should be
conducted to increase awareness of general transit services. A news release calendar should be developed
to make sure that information is being released on a regular basis. These ongoing efforts should be related
to events, such as increased gas prices or earth day events, for example. Additionally, ARTS sponsored
“transit days” could be created, where incentives (such as free transit passes) are offered to riders; this
program would be similar to the “Bike to Work Week” programs implemented throughout the California
and the country.

Update and Improve ARTS System Map and Schedule

To provide more transit schedule and map information to riders, it is recommended that ARTS take the
following measures to improve these materials:

    Rather than list a schedule time for each signed stop, “time points” located roughly every 5 minutes
    along the schedule or in each community should be shown. All signed stops can be listed, however
    schedule time will not be shown for all. Not only will this make the schedule more concise, but it
    allows for greater flexibility with travel time.

    Regularly update all schedule and maps as changes are made, and ensure that all new, major stops are
    included.

    Include all routes on the schedules and maps provided online and as hardcopies, even specialized
    routes such as Route K.

    Continue the “color-coding” of all routes, allowing for easier distinction between the different
    services provided by ARTS.

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                            Amador County
Page 154                                                                              Transit Development Plan
    Present the ADA eligible three-quarters of a mile route deviation policy clearly on all schedules and
    on the website.

It is important that updated schedules be available both in print and on the website, and that they provide
potential passengers with up-to-date information on available services. Though some ARTS services may
be initially designed to serve specific user groups, the ongoing effectiveness of services depends on the
ability of other potential passengers to be aware of the service.

Internet Website

In addition to the online schedule and map recommendations above, ARTS should expand their website
to include important links to agencies such as the ACTC, rideshare/vanpool programs, and social service
agencies. Further, due to the lack of late and weekend service, detailed information regarding Reserve-A-
Ride, such as hours of operation and fee structure, should be provided.

Expand Marketing Materials Provided in Spanish

Amador County has a high population of Hispanic residents, many of whom are regular users of the
ARTS transit services. ARTS should translate all schedules, maps and pertinent website information into
Spanish. Further, where feasible, marketing efforts to advertise new and revised services should also be
produced in Spanish, including newspaper ads and posters for distribution at markets and social services
agencies.

Market Transit Access to Sacramento International Airport and Capital Corridor Rail Service

In addition to providing commuter service into downtown Sacramento, the Route X bus also connects
with Yolobus routes to provide service between Amador County and the Sacramento Airport and the
Amtrak rail service. Yolobus provides hourly airport service from downtown Sacramento, however
convenient connections can be made allowing passengers to arrive at the airport at 8:23 AM and 5:23 PM.
Return departures from the airport are available at 7:20 AM and 4:20 PM, which would arrive in Amador
County at 9:28 AM and 6:42 PM. Amtrak connections can also be made via Route X. Passengers can
arrive in Sacramento for connections to Bay Area and San Joaquin Valley bound trains, with both
morning and evening opportunities. Table 34 provides more information regarding available connections
to both Yolobus and Amtrak.

ARTS has recently begun promoting these services through advertisements on the back of the buses.
Marketing activities should continue and should be expanded to include advertisements in the newspaper
and on the website. Further, a footnote should be provided on the ARTS schedules that denote the
available service via Route X, including the location and schedule of connecting Yolobus service to and
from the airport. Table 34 identifies possible connection time from ARTS services to Yolobus and
Amtrak in Sacramento.

Continue Implementation of the Transit Marketing Plan

In addition to the marketing strategies discussed above, the Transit Marketing Plan developed for ARTS
in 1999 provides a range of marketing strategies that remain appropriate, including the following:

    Increase coordination between ARTS and social service agencies via attendance of social service
    meetings, training for social service staff on ARTS services, and distribution of marketing materials
    through social services.


Amador County                                                               LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                              Page 155
Page 156
                                       TABLE 34: ARTS Air & Rail Connections in Sacramento

                                       Trips FROM Amador County
                                                       ARTS Route X                                                                             Yolobus
                                                                                                                                        Depart           Arrive




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                                                Arrive       Arrive Light Rail                                       Sacramento Sacramento Intl
                                         Depart Sutter Hill   Sacramento         (65th St)         Amtrak California Departures     (4th St & L St)      Airport
                                            6:11 AM            7:55 AM                                 8:30 AM to Bay Area             8:08 AM          8:22 AM
                                                                                                  10:25 AM to San Joaquin Valley       9:08 AM          9:22 AM
                                             9:55 AM                            11:02 AM              12:10 PM to Bay Area            12:08 PM         12:22 PM
                                                                                                  1:45 PM to San Joaquin Valley
                                             3:33 PM            5:03 PM                                5:40 PM to Bay Area            5:08 PM        5:22 PM
                                                                                                  6:25 PM to San Joaquin Valley       6:08 PM        6:22 PM

                                       Trips TO Amador County
                                                    Yolobus                                                                                         ARTS Route X
                                                                                                                                       Depart
                                       Depart Sacramento        Arrive                                                              Sacramento     Depart Light
                                          Intl Airport        Sacramento                             Amtrak California Arrivals     (3rd & J St)   Rail (65th St)   Arrive Sutter Hill
                                           7:20 AM             7:34 AM                                7:38 AM from Bay Area           7:57 AM                           9:28 AM

                                            10:15 AM           10:29 AM                                9:45 AM from Bay Area                        11:04 AM           12:07 PM
                                                                                                 10:00 AM from San Joaquin Valley
                                             4:20 PM            4:34 PM                                4:48 PM from Bay Area          5:05 PM                           6:42 PM
                                                                                                  3:25 PM from San Joaquin Valley

                                       Note: RT Light Rail connections between downtown Sacramento and 65th Avenue station for midday Route X connections provided every 15
                                       minutes, and require 19 minutes of travel.




Transit Development Plan
          Amador County
    Increase awareness of ARTS services to occasional riders and the general public, through regular
    news releases, advertising in telephone books, and provision of route and schedule information at
    high activity centers such as retail stores, town halls, and recreation centers.

    Provision of personal trip planning information by phone, and developing a “transit ambassador”
    program in which new passengers are guided through their first trip on the ARTS system.

To provide the resources needed to expand the availability and timeliness of marketing materials, this
plan expands the marketing materials budget by $10,000 per year.

Marketing/Special Project Position

Given the extent of new programs recommended and presented in this Transit Development Plan, a new
Marketing/Special Project position will be established within ARTS. This position will take primary
responsibility for the following:

    Implementing marketing improvements.

    Implementing the service plan elements, focusing on the Reserve-A-Ride and Transportation
    Reimbursement programs.

    Serving as the primary liaison between ARTS, the SSTAC, and the community, for the new programs
    and services discussed, which would otherwise be done on existing ARTS administrative staff time.
    Funding for this position should be included in the 2009/10 FY. The establishment of a part- or full-
    time position will be determined by the amount of funding available.

This position is funded to provide 10 hours per week of staff time as part of the ARTS program.

Hold Regular Staff Meetings With Bus Drivers and Maintenance Personnel

An important aspect of a successful transit system is the ability for issues and problems that have been
observed to be discussed and communicated on a regular basis with not only the transit manager, but
other drivers as well. This presents a positive and comfortable forum that encourages participation and
discussion, which can lead to a more productive system. ARTS should allot time at each safety meeting
(held regularly, every other month) to discuss any service or passenger problems experienced during the
previous month, in addition to presenting suggestions for improvements based upon these observations.
Follow up to any items requiring action will occur within two weeks. Further, minutes will be taken and
kept on file.

Provide Dispatch Service During All ARTS Operating Hours

ARTS buses are in operation between 5:40 AM and 7:15 PM, depending on the route, however
dispatchers are only available in the ARTS offices until 4:30 PM. This presents many problems for the
drivers during the later runs: 1) there is no one to address a vehicle roadcall, should one occur, 2) no one
is available if there is a health/safety issue with an onboard passenger, 3) passengers requesting an on-call
or deviation cannot be accommodated. Additionally, many later buses provide connections to other ARTS
routes and Calaveras-bound buses – if a bus is running late, they are not able to inform the dispatcher,
who would otherwise inform the connecting bus to wait for the transferring passenger to arrive (provided
the bus is not significantly late).



Amador County                                                                LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                               Page 157
In order to maintain safety and reliance on all routes, dispatch services should be available while all
routes are in operation (until 7:15 PM). Only one employee is required for the dispatch, and it is not
necessary to also provide maintenance personnel. The preferred option would be to stagger existing work
shifts to cover the entire operating day. If this is not feasible, the additional staff time is expected to
increase operating costs on the order of $17,100 per year. This staff time can also be used to summarize
the service monitoring data discussed above. To be conservative, this additional cost is included in the
financial plan.

FINANCIAL PLAN
Modifications to Fares

ARTS has only increased transit fares once since 1991, from $0.75 to the current fare of $1.00. As
inflation has reduced the value of $1.00 in current dollars to $0.62 in 1991 dollars, ARTS fares are
effectively $0.13 lower today than they were in 1991. Given current economic conditions and the need for
additional revenues, ARTD will implement the following changes to the fare program, starting in FY
2008/09:

    The Local Route fare will be increased from $1.00 to $1.25 for the general public and from $0.50 to
    $0.60 for elderly/disabled. Monthly passes will be increased from $34 to $40 for the general public
    and from $17 to $20 for elderly/disabled. The resulting one-way fares will be slightly above the
    existing average fare of eight peer transit services around Northern California ($1.14), but will remain
    below the average for monthly passes ($40.50). This fare will also help ARTS address recent
    increases in costs (notably for fuel) and also help to fund the service improvements identified in this
    plan.

    ARTS will implement an additional charge for deviation requests by non-ADA passengers. General
    public passengers will be charged an additional $1.00 per deviation request, while elderly/disabled
    passengers not qualified under the ADA will be charged $0.50. An additional prepaid ticket will also
    be honored as payment for deviations. ADA passengers will continue to be served on deviation within
    three-quarters of a mile of the route at no additional fare. The intent of this strategy is to encourage
    passengers that are able to walk to a designated stop to do so, in order to limit the number of
    deviations and improve on-time performance. An additional fare for deviations is a common strategy
    among transit services offering route deviation service, as it improves the overall quality of service
    and better reflects the costs to the transit system associated with deviations.

    Fares for the Route X segment between Sutter Hill and Rancho Murieta will be increased from $1.25
    to $1.75 (General Public) and from $0.75 to $1.00 for Senior/Disabled. Added to the fares between
    Rancho Murieta and downtown Sacramento ($2.25 and $1.10, respectively), Route X fares will be
    increased to $4.00 from $3.50 for General Public and to $2.20 from $1.85 for Senior/Disabled
    passengers. While this would result in slighting higher fares compared to the peer average ($3.04), the
    relatively long distance traveled still results in a fare per mile ($0.08) below the average ($0.11).
    Further, monthly passes should be increased to $100, which results in a fare of $0.05 per mile. This
    fare increase is warranted due to the increase in the cost of providing Route X service, and still
    provides a dramatic savings to commuters compared with the cost of driving.

Depending upon future changes in costs and subsidy revenues, additional fare increases may be necessary
within the TDP plan period, at the discretion of the ACTC Board.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                            Amador County
Page 158                                                                              Transit Development Plan
Subsidy Funding Sources

The following methodology was utilized in developing this Financial Plan:

    First, forecasts of annual operating and administrative costs were developed, as presented in Table 35
    for FY 2008/09 through FY 2012/13. “Base case” operating and administrative cost forecasts were
    estimated, assuming a 3 percent annual inflation rate of current costs in the absence of any change in
    service levels. Next, operating and administrative cost estimates were identified for each Plan
    element, based upon the analyses presented in previous sections of this document, and consistent with
    the implementation plan presented below. These costs were also factored to reflect the assumed rate
    of inflation. Operating and administrative costs over the five-year period will total approximately
    $7,143,100 with the plan elements, which is a 15 percent increase from the base case total of
    $6,200,000.

    Next, ridership for each plan element was estimated, as presented in Table 36. The “base case”
    ridership reflects expected ridership assuming no changes in service and that ridership will grow
    consistent with the recent population growth rate of 1.2 percent. The ridership impact of each Plan
    element (including the fare modifications) is then identified and summed. As new services do not
    immediately attain the full potential ridership, ridership on new services is factored to reflect 75
    percent of potential ridership in the first year of service and 90 percent of potential ridership in the
    second year. For relatively small changes to existing services (such as the Route I expansion), a 90
    percent factor is assumed for the first year and full ridership thereafter. In addition, ridership (for both
    base case and for the service improvements) is factored to reflect an annual increase in population and
    associated ridership demand. By FY 2012/13, ridership is conservatively forecast to equal 406,900
    one-way passenger-trips per year, which is 17,000 trips over the base case forecast of 389,900. This
    indicates that the plan will result in a 4.3 percent increase in ridership by the end of the plan period.

    Based on the ridership figures presented in Table 36, the estimated farebox revenues are presented in
    Table 37. Again, these figures reflect the impacts of the fare modifications. As presented, the base
    case farebox revenues for FY 2012/13 are estimated at $191,600. Implementation of the plan
    elements will increase those farebox revenues by $45,100, equal to a 23.5 percent increase.

    The next element necessary in the development of the plan is estimation of the capital cost for
    vehicles, passenger amenities, passenger facility improvements and operating equipment, as shown in
    Table 38 for each year of the plan period. It should be noted that an annual inflation rate of 3.0
    percent is reflected in these figures. Capital items consist of the following:

    −    Vehicle purchases, as detailed above
    −    Security improvements, including video cameras and the Automatic Vehicle Location system
    −    Transit Center improvements
    −    Bus shelter/bus stop improvements

Capital costs over the five-year period will total approximately $6,135,800.




Amador County                                                                  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                                 Page 159
Page 160
                                       TABLE 35: Amador County TDP - Estimated Operating Costs
                                          All Figures in Thousands
                                                                                                                 Projected     Projected      Projected       Projected   Projected   5-Year Plan




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                       Plan Element                                                               FY08-09       FY09-10        FY10-11         FY11-12     FY12-13       Total
                                                                          (1)
                                       Base Case Operating Cost                                                   $1,183.5       $1,219.0      $1,255.6       $1,293.2    $1,332.0      $6,283.4
                                       Service Plan Elements
                                         Implement Community -- Express Route Plan                                     $0.0         $91.9             $94.6       $97.5     $100.4        $384.4
                                         Eliminate Route R                                                           -$47.2        -$48.6            -$50.0      -$51.5      -$53.1      -$250.5
                                         Revise / Expand Route I Schedule                                             $19.5         $20.1             $20.7       $21.3       $21.9       $103.4
                                         Establish Service to MACT Clinic                                             $11.6         $12.0             $12.3       $12.7       $13.1        $61.8
                                         Reserve-A-Ride Program                                                       $40.0         $42.4             $43.7       $45.0       $46.4       $217.5
                                         Transportation Reimbursement Program                                          $0.0         $21.2             $21.9       $22.5       $23.2        $88.8
                                         Marketing / Special Projects Position                                        $32.5         $33.5             $34.5       $35.5       $36.6       $172.5
                                         Increase in Marketing Expenditures                                           $10.0         $10.3             $10.6       $10.9       $11.3        $53.1
                                         Dispatch Staff After 4:30 PM                                                 $17.1         $17.6             $18.2       $18.7       $19.3        $90.9
                                         Subtotal Plan Elements                                                      $83.6        $200.4            $206.4      $212.6      $219.0       $921.9
                                                                (2)
                                       Net Operating Cost                                                         $1,267.1       $1,419.4      $1,462.0       $1,505.8    $1,551.0      $7,205.2
                                       Note 1: The FY 2007-08 costs are based upon existing costs, increased by 3 percent per year for inflation.
                                       Note 2: This analysis assumes an annual inflation rate of 3 percent.
                                       Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.




Transit Development Plan
          Amador County
Amador County
Transit Development Plan
                                       TABLE 36: Amador County TDP - Estimated Ridership
                                          All Figures in Thousands

                                                                                                                Projected      Projected     Projected     Projected        Projected    5-Year Plan
                                       Plan Element                                                              FY08-09        FY09-10       FY10-11       FY11-12          FY12-13        Total
                                                                     (1)
                                       Base Case Ridership                                                           371.7          376.2         380.7         385.3           389.9       1,903.8
                                       Service Plan Elements
                                         Implement Community -- Express Route Plan                                      0.0          13.0           15.8             17.7        17.9           64.4
                                         Eliminate Route R                                                              -2.5          -2.6          -2.6             -2.6         -2.7         -13.0
                                         Revise / Expand Route I Schedule                                               1.5            1.6           1.7              1.7         1.7            8.2
                                         Establish Service to MACT Clinic                                               0.6            0.6           0.6              0.6         0.6            3.0
                                         Reserve-A-Ride Program                                                         1.1            1.1           1.1              1.2         1.2            5.7
                                         Transportation Reimbursement Program                                           2.7            2.8           2.8              2.8         2.9           14.0
                                         Local Route Fare Increase                                                      -7.2          -6.3          -5.6             -4.9         -4.3         -28.3
                                         Route X Fare Increase                                                          -0.3          -0.3          -0.3             -0.3         -0.3          -1.5
                                         Subtotal Plan Elements                                                        -4.1           9.9          13.5          16.2            17.0          52.5
                                       Net Ridership                                                                 367.6          386.1         394.2         401.5           406.9       1,956.3
                                       Note 1: This analysis assumes that ridership will increase at the same rate as anticipated population growth (2.2 percent).
                                       Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                          Page 161
Page 162
                                       TABLE 37: Amador County TDP - Estimated Farebox Revenues
                                         All Figures in Thousands

                                                                                                           Projected     Projected    Projected     Projected   Projected   5-Year Plan
                                       Plan Element                                                         FY08-09       FY09-10      FY10-11       FY11-12     FY12-13       Total




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                       Base Case                                                               $182.7       $184.9       $187.1       $189.3      $191.6        $935.6
                                       Service Plan Elements
                                         Implement Community -- Express Route Plan                               $0.0        $10.1         $12.2        $13.7       $13.9        $49.9
                                         Eliminate Route R                                                       -$1.0        -$1.0        -$1.0        -$1.0       -$1.1         -$5.2
                                         Revise / Expand Route I Schedule                                        $1.2          $1.3         $1.4         $1.4        $1.4          $6.7
                                         Establish Service to MACT Clinic                                        $0.5          $0.5         $0.5         $0.5        $0.5          $2.7
                                         Reserve-A-Ride Program                                                  $6.6          $6.6         $6.6         $7.2        $7.2        $34.2
                                         Transportation Reimbursement Program                                    $0.0          $0.0         $0.0         $0.0        $0.0          $0.0
                                         Social Service Package Transportation Program                           $2.0          $2.1         $2.1         $2.2        $2.3        $10.6
                                         Local Route Fare Increase                                              $17.0        $17.2         $17.6        $18.2       $19.1        $89.1
                                         Route X Fare Increase                                                   $1.6          $1.6         $1.6         $1.7        $1.8          $8.3
                                         Subtotal Plan Elements                                                 $28.0        $38.3        $41.0        $43.9       $45.1       $196.3
                                       Net Farebox Revenues                                                    $210.6       $223.2       $228.1       $233.2      $236.7      $1,131.8

                                       Note 1: Includes fares, pass sales, VMRC contract revenues, and Sacramento RT transfer agreement revenues.
                                       Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.




Transit Development Plan
          Amador County
Amador County
Transit Development Plan
                                       TABLE 38: Amador County TDP Capital Plan
                                          All Figures in Thousands

                                                                                               Projected   Projected   Projected   Projected   Projected   5-Year Plan
                                       Plan Element                                             FY08-09     FY09-10     FY10-11     FY11-12     FY12-13       Total

                                       20-Psgr Replacement Buses
                                         Number of Buses                                               0          0           4           2            0            6
                                         Total Cost                                                 $0.0       $0.0      $445.8      $229.6         $0.0       $675.4
                                       On-Board Surveillance & Other Security Improvements        $153.0       $0.0        $0.0        $0.0         $0.0       $153.0
                                       Automatic Vehicle Location System                            $0.0     $275.0        $0.0        $0.0         $0.0       $275.0
                                                                  (2)
                                       Sutter Hill Transit Center
                                         Phase 1                                               $3,138.9      $328.0        $0.0        $0.0        $0.0      $3,466.9
                                         Subsequent Phases                                         $0.0      $427.7      $541.3      $281.4      $281.4      $1,531.8
                                         Subtotal                                              $3,138.9      $755.7      $541.3      $281.4      $281.4      $4,998.7
                                       Bus Shelters / Bus Stop Improvements                        $16.6       $17.1        $0.0        $0.0        $0.0        $33.6
                                       Total Capital Plan Elements                             $3,308.4    $1,047.8      $987.1      $511.0      $281.4      $6,135.8
                                       Note 1: All costs include 3 percent annual inflation.
                                       Note 2: Excludes funds allocated in previous years.
                                       Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                          Page 163
The results of Tables 35 through 38 were used to develop the Financial Plan, as presented for each of the
five years of the plan period in Table 39. In addition to passenger fares (from Table 35), this Financial
Plan incorporates the following operating funding sources:

    Local Transportation Funds (LTF) are the key local source of transit operating funds, currently
    generating roughly two-thirds of the funds used to operate services. Unfortunately, the trend in these
    sales-tax-based LTF revenues generated each year that are available for ARTS has declined over the
    last year, and is forecast by the County auditor to decline further in FY 2008/09. This can be
    attributed to the overall drop in the national economy, as well as the loss of several major businesses
    (though new stores have opened recently). Excluding carryover funds as well as LTF funds allocated
    to other purposes, LTF annual income available to ARTS has declined from a high of $998,620 in FY
    2006/07 to an estimate of $952,398 in FY 2007/08 and a forecast of $923,160 in FY 2008/09. This
    plan conservatively assumes that annual LTF revenues will be flat between FY 2008/09 and 2009/10,
    and subsequently increase by the assumed rate of inflation (3 percent) plus the rate of population
    growth (1.2 percent).

    Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5311 funds for FY 2008/09 and 2009/10 are based on
    Caltrans estimates and are assumed to increase by 3 percent per year in subsequent years.

    A new FTA Section 5316 Jobs Access and Reverse Commute grant will be pursued to fund half of
    the increase in operating subsidies needed to provide the new Route S Express route, and to expand
    the schedule on Route I to serve commuters. As these service expansions will greatly increase ARTS’
    ability to serve resident’s access to jobs, it is a good candidate for this federal funding program.

    Interest income, Sacramento County funding for the portion of Route X operated within Sacramento
    County, and miscellaneous income is assumed to increase by 3 percent per year over the course of the
    plan period.

    In total, operating revenues are forecast to exceed operating costs for every year of the plan. The
    surplus operating funds are assumed in Table 39 to be placed in the capital reserve fund. Other capital
    funding is planned as follows:

    Proposition 1B PTMISEA (Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement and Service
    Enhancement Account) funds are allocated for the Sutter Hill Transit Center, as well as bus stop
    improvements in the first two plan years and bus replacement during years three and four. This
    allocation reflects that vehicle replacement and bus stop improvements throughout the County are of
    higher importance to the overall ARTS program than completion of the final phases of the Sutter Hill
    Transit Center. Along with previous PTMISEA funding allocations, this plan will fully expend the
    funds allocated to Amador County from this bond program.

    Proposition 1B CTSGP (California Transit Security Grant Program) funds are allocated for on-board
    surveillance systems, transit center security systems, and for the AVL system. These expenditures
    will fully expend all funds allocated to Amador County.

    State Transit Assistance (STA) funding is highly uncertain, as it is more affected by decision making
    regarding the state budget deficit than other transit funding sources. For purposes of this plan, the
    annual revenue received in the most recent four quarters is assumed to stay flat over the plan period.
    As shown, these funds are allocated in Table 37 to the Sutter Hill Transit Center, though they may be
    used for other purposes if the funding for the transit center changes in the future.



LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                           Amador County
Page 164                                                                             Transit Development Plan
                                       TABLE 39: Amador County TDP Financial Plan
                                                                                                                           All Figures in Thousands
                                                                                                        Projected     Projected    Projected     Projected     Projected   5-Year Plan
                                                                                                         FY08-09       FY09-10      FY10-11       FY11-12       FY12-13       Total

                                       OPERATING PLAN




Amador County
                                       Base Case Costs                                                   $1,167.8      $1,202.8      $1,238.9     $1,276.1      $1,314.4     $6,200.0
                                       Operating Plan Elements (From Table 49)                              $84.4       $205.3        $211.4       $217.8        $224.3       $943.1
                                         Total Operating Costs                                           $1,252.2      $1,408.1      $1,450.3     $1,493.9      $1,538.7     $7,143.1
                                       Operating Revenues




Transit Development Plan
                                         Passenger Fares (From Table 51)                                  $210.6        $223.2        $228.1       $233.2        $236.7      $1,131.8
                                         Annual LTF Operating Revenues                                    $923.2        $923.2        $961.9      $1,002.3      $1,044.4     $4,855.0
                                         FTA Section 5311                                                 $149.1        $153.6        $158.2       $162.9        $167.8       $791.6
                                         FTA 5316 - JARC                                                     $0.0         $73.7         $75.9        $78.1         $80.5      $308.1
                                         Interest                                                           $15.0         $15.0         $15.0        $15.0         $15.0        $75.0
                                         Sacramento County                                                  $89.8         $92.5         $95.3        $98.2       $101.1       $477.0
                                         Charter Revenues                                                   $13.1         $13.5         $13.9        $14.3         $14.7        $69.4
                                         Total Operating Revenues                                        $1,400.8      $1,494.6      $1,548.3     $1,604.1      $1,660.2     $7,707.9
                                         Annual Balance: Transfer to Capital Fund                         $148.6          $86.5         $97.9      $110.2        $121.6
                                       CAPITAL PLAN
                                       Capital Costs (From Table 52)                                     $3,308.4      $1,047.8        $987.1       $511.0        $281.4     $6,135.8
                                       Capital Revenues
                                         Sutter Hill Transit Center
                                               Phase 1 - CMAQ                                            $1,031.5          $0.0          $0.0         $0.0          $0.0     $1,031.5
                                               Phase 1 - FTA 5309                                         $579.8        $214.4           $0.0         $0.0          $0.0      $794.2
                                               Phase 1 - Prop 1B PTMISEA                                  $384.9           $0.0          $0.0         $0.0          $0.0      $384.9
                                               Phase 1 - Prop 1B Transit Security                           $33.2          $0.0          $0.0         $0.0          $0.0        $33.2
                                               Phase 1 - FTA 5311f                                        $400.0           $0.0          $0.0         $0.0          $0.0      $400.0
                                               Phase 1 - Transportation Enhancement                       $408.0           $0.0          $0.0         $0.0          $0.0      $408.0
                                               Phase 1 - State Transportation Assistance                  $301.5        $113.6           $0.0         $0.0          $0.0      $415.1
                                               Subsequent Phases - STA                                       $0.0       $167.8         $281.4       $281.4        $281.4     $1,012.0
                                               Subsequent Phases - Prop 1B PTMISEA                           $0.0       $259.9         $259.9         $0.0          $0.0      $519.8
                                          Proposition 1B PTMISEA                                            $16.6         $17.1        $445.8       $229.6          $0.0      $709.0
                                          Prop 1B Transit Security                                        $153.0        $275.0           $0.0         $0.0          $0.0      $428.0
                                          Capital Fund                                                       $0.0          $0.0          $0.0         $0.0          $0.0         $0.0
                                          Total Capital Revenues                                         $3,589.8      $1,161.4        $987.1       $511.0        $281.4     $6,530.8

                                       Capital Fund Balance
                                         Beginning Balance (1)                                               $0.0        $430.0        $630.1       $728.1        $838.3
                                         Income -- Transfer from Operating & Capital Revenues              $430.0        $200.1         $97.9       $110.2        $121.6
                                         Expenses                                                            $0.0          $0.0          $0.0         $0.0          $0.0
                                         Ending Balance                                                    $430.0        $630.1        $728.1       $838.3        $959.8

                                       LTF - Local Transportation Funds
                                       STA - State Transit Assistance. Used for capital and cash flow.
                                       FTA - Federal Transit Adminisistration
                                       PTMISEA - Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement and Service Enhancement Account
                                       Note 1: All existing capital fund balance is assumed to be applied to the Sutter Hill Transit Center by the end of FY 2007-08.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                          Page 165
                                       Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
As presented in the bottom portion of Table 39, this analysis indicates that the plan elements can be fully
funded, while still generating a positive Capital Fund balance that will grow to approximately $898,000
by the end of the plan period. This plan provides a total of just under $5,000,000 in funding for the Sutter
Hill Transit Center in FY 2008/09 through FY 2012/13, consisting of $3,467,000 for Phase 1 and
$1,532,000 for subsequent phases.

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
FY 2008/09

    Eliminate Route R service
    Revise and expand Route I
    Monitor the Kirkwood Skier Service during the winter season
    Establish service to the MACT clinic
    Improve ARTS’ ADA policy
    Consider a Daffodil Hill shuttle service
    Implement the Reserve-A-Ride program
    Implement the Social Service Package Transportation program
    Revise Route M to serve SR 88
    Begin monitoring and tracking of on-time performance and deviation requests
    Establish stops for Route S Express, Route S Service Route and Route I, and finalize schedules
    Begin implementation of bus stop improvements
    Initial construction of the Sutter Hill Transit Center
    Provide on-board surveillance systems on buses
    Revise the unmet needs definition
    Adopt goals, performance measures and standards
    Expand marketing efforts and improvements
    Develop and implement a Marketing/Special Projects position
    Begin holding regular staff meetings with bus drivers and maintenance personnel
    Begin providing dispatch service during all ARTS hours of service
    Implement local and commuter route fare increases

FY 2009/10

    Implement the Jackson/Sutter Hill/Sutter Creek Route S Express and Route S Service Routes
    Implement the Transportation Reimbursement Program
    Eliminate or modify the Kirkwood Skier Service, if warranted
    Continue to monitor and track on-time performance and deviation requests
    Finalize bus stop improvements
    Continue planning and construction of the Sutter Hill Transit Center
    Continue expanded marketing efforts
    Continue to hold regular staff meetings
    Continue the provision of dispatch service during all ARTS route hours

FY 2010/11

    Purchase four new vehicles
    Continue planning and construction of the Sutter Hill Transit Center




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                            Amador County
Page 166                                                                              Transit Development Plan
    Continue expanded marketing efforts
    Continue to hold regular staff meetings
    Continue the provision of dispatch service during all ARTS route hours

FY 2011/12

    Purchase two new vehicles
    Continue planning and construction of the Sutter Hill Transit Center
    Continue expanded marketing efforts
    Continue to hold regular staff meetings
    Continue the provision of dispatch service during all ARTS route hours

FY 2012/13

    Continue planning and construction of the Sutter Hill Transit Center
    Continue expanded marketing efforts
    Continue to hold regular staff meetings
    Continue the provision of dispatch service during all ARTS route hours
    Prepare updated Transit Development Plan




Amador County                                                            LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Transit Development Plan                                                                           Page 167
Appendix A
Appendix A: ARTS Bus Stop Boarding Activity
                                                                                                                 Total
Bus Stop                           Rte S       Rte I   Rte X   Rte M   Rte P   RteC   Rte V   Rte R   Rte K   Passengers

ARC                                   6                                 1       13                                20
ARTS                                            4       8       3       1                      2                  18
Jackson Hills Apartments             17                                                                           17
Sutter Creek Auditorium              9                  5               2                                         16
Main and California                  7                          9                                                 16
Wal Mart                             12         1                               2       1                         16
Jackson Elementary                                              2                                      13         15
Albertsons                           14                                                                           14
Sierra House Restaurant                                         12                                                12
Rollingwood Estates                  12                                                                           12
Argonaut Jr High                                10                                                                10
65th St LR                                              10                                                        10
Raley's                              8                                                  2                         10
Senior Center/Oak Manor              10                                                                           10
Petkovich Park                       5                          4                                                 9
Sutter Ln                                       4                               5                                 9
Sutter Terrace                        8                                                                           8
Sutter Amador Hosp                    5         3                                                                 8
Safeway                               8                                                                           8
Sutter Hill                           7                                                                           7
Carbondale Rd                                           7                                                         7
Rancho Murieta Parkway                                  7                                                         7
Longs                                 7                                                                           7
River Pines                                                             7                                         7
Pine Grove Town Hall                                            6                                                 6
Payless                                                         6                                                 6
Jackson Gate                          4                                                 1                         5
Kit Carson Conv. Hosp                 4                                                 1                         5
Ione Jr High                                    4                               1                                 5
Save Mart                             3                                                 2                         5
913 Vista Ln                                    4                                                                 4
Claypools Mkt                                   4                                                                 4
Amador High School                    4                                                                           4
Amador Station and Woodland                                     4                                                 4
Buckhorn Ridge                                                  4                                                 4
The Meadows                           2                                         1       1                         4
Jackson Jr High                                                                                        4          4
104 and Church                                                          4                                         4
Kennedy Meadws                                                  3                                                 3
N. Meadow and Sugar Pine                                        3                                                 3
Gayla Manor                                                     3                                                 3
Family Learing Center                                                   3                                         3
Shenandoah School Rd                                                                           3                  3
Jose's Place                                    2                                                                 2
Rancho Murieta South                                    2                                                         2
Melody Oaks Trailer                                             2                                                 2
Pioneer Post Office                                             2                                                 2
Silver Dr @ 76                                                  2                                                 2
Argonaut High School                                            2                                                 2
Oaks Mobile Home Park                                                   2                                         2
State Preschool                                                                                2                  2
Court St and Placer                   1                                                                           1
Oak Liquidators                       1                                                                           1
W Marlette                                      1                                                                 1
308 Manor                                       1                                                                 1
Red Corral Drive In                                             1                                                 1
Kings Court                                                     1                                                 1
Mace Meadow                                                     1                                                 1
Hwy 88 and Pio Crk                                              1                                                 1
Arden Curt @ Ridge                                              1                                                 1
Main and Church                                                                 1                                 1
McDonald's                                                                              1                         1
Plymouth Post Office                                                    1                                         1
Coyote Drive                                                            1                                         1
Ione Cemetary                                                           1                                         1
Camanche Rd/Buena Vista Rd                                              1                                         1
Tiffany at South                                                                1                                 1
Eureka Road                                                                             1                         1

Note: Data is not inclusive of all ARTS runs
Source: ARTS, compiled by LSC
Appendix B
                                ATTACHMENT A

    TO CONTRACT BETWEEN ARTS AND BLUE MOUNTAIN TRANSIT
                    FOR RESERVE-A-RIDE

Service

      Service will be provided to “transportation disadvantaged” persons only
      (with the exceptions immediately below). This is defined as those persons
      that due to age, disability or income level have no ready access to a
      private vehicle, or do not have a family member that could otherwise
      reasonably provide the trip. Extra passengers may be carried between
      identical service points.

      Both trip origin and trip destination must be within 1 mile of an existing
      ARTS route, including the Route M service on Ridge Road and the Route
      P extensions to Fiddletown and River Pines, but excluding Route X. The
      contractor has the right to refuse service to locations accessed by
      roadways not suitable for the contractor’s vehicles.

      Service available on Saturdays 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM and on Wednesdays
      6:00 PM to 10:00 PM. For weeks on which Wednesday is a holiday,
      service will be offered one other weekday.

      The contractor will take reservation requests until a minimum of 24 hours
      in advance:

          o Reservations for Saturday service must be received by 6 PM on the
            preceding Thursday.

          o Reservations for Wednesday evening service must be received by
            6 PM on the preceding Tuesday.

          o Passengers will leave a voice message requesting service, and will
            be called back by the contractor no later than 6 PM of the day
            preceding service.

      The contractor may serve ride requests made after the 24-hour advance
      cut off time, but these passengers are not guaranteed service.

      If a specific trip request cannot be served but capacity is available on the
      requested day of service, the contractor will offer alternative service times
      to the passenger.

      The contractor will work with the passengers to provide flexibility on return
      trips due to delays in appointments.



                                                                                   1
   “Standing orders” may be made (where service will be provided unless
   cancelled in advance), though the amount of standing orders may be
   limited to ensure that other passengers have access to service.

   The contractor can choose to not provide service on any day where less
   than 3 reservations are made.

   Fares will be based upon the costs incurred in the provision of service
   based upon the time required for the trip (from departure in the Sutter Hill
   area to return to the Sutter Hill area) plus 30 minutes (or half) of the out-of-
   service time between Sutter Hill and the contractors operations base in
   San Andreas, multiplied by 0.10 to reflect a fare that is 10 percent of the
   operating cost. The attached table presents estimated fares for trips
   within or between various zones. These fares will vary based upon the
   actual time required to serve a specific trip, and may also be adjusted
   once actual operating parameters (in particular, the ability to group trips)
   can be observed. Additional passengers traveling between identical
   points at identical times will be carried for a fare of $2.00 per one-way trip.
   Personal care attendants needed by ADA passengers to complete their
   trip will be carried at no charge.

Billing

   The contractor will bill at the rate of $56.17 per service hours.

   Service hours will be calculated from the time of departure from the
   operations center to the time of return to the operations center, except for
   time spent for driver meals.

   Drivers shall be required to complete a daily form that identifies the date,
   driver name, time departing operations base, time returning to operations
   base, times for any meal breaks, and the following for each trip:

          o Passenger pick up location

          o Scheduled passenger pick up time and date

          o Whether the passenger is a “no show”

          o Actual passenger pick up time

          o Number of passengers

          o Passenger drop off location

          o Passenger drop off time

          o Fare collected from passenger(s)


                                                                                  2
   o Signature of the passenger



The contractor shall complete a monthly summary of service, providing the
following for each day of service and for the month as a whole:

   o Number of reservations

   o Number of reservations served

   o Number of passenger-trips provided

   o Number of “no shows”

   o Number of late cancellations (after the 24-hour-advance cut off
     time)

   o Number of reservation requests that could not be scheduled for
     service due to capacity limitations.

   o Number of confirmed reservations not served

   o Any accidents, passenger incidents, or other incidents (such as
     road closures) that affected service

   o Time vehicle departed the operations base

   o Beginning and end time for any meal breaks

   o Time vehicle returned to the operations base

   o Total hours of service for which payment is requested

Both the monthly summary and the individual driver log sheets shall be
provided on a monthly basis to ARTS.




                                                                         3
TABLE 1: Estimated Reserve-A-Ride Fares
    Per One-Way Trip
                                                             Trip Destination Zone
                                                  Sutter Hill /
                                                 Sutter Creek /                                                 Pioneer /
                                                   Jackson /                    Shenandoah     Pine Grove /       Mace
                     Camanche          Ione       Rancheria        Plymouth       Valley         Volcano        Meadows


     Camanche          $7.50          $8.50          $7.50          $8.50            $9.75        $11.25         $13.00




         Ione          $8.50          $5.50          $5.50          $7.50            $9.00        $9.25          $11.25
T
r
i    Sutter Hill /
p   Sutter Creek /
                       $7.50          $5.50          $4.75          $6.00            $7.50        $6.50          $8.50
      Jackson /
O    Rancheria
r
i
      Plymouth         $8.50          $7.50          $6.00          $6.00            $8.00        $9.25          $11.25
g
i
n
    Shenandoah
                       $9.75          $9.00          $7.50          $8.00            $7.50        $10.75         $12.75
Z     Valley
o
n
e    Pine Grove /
                       $11.25         $9.25          $6.50          $9.25         $10.75          $6.50          $9.25
       Volcano


      Pioneer /
        Mace           $13.00        $11.25          $8.50          $11.25        $12.75          $9.25          $8.50
      Meadows
    Note: Actual fare may vary up to 20 percent due to the time required to serve a specific trip.
    Additional passengers carried between identical points at identical times (within the capacity of the vehicle) will be
    charged a fare of $2.00 per one-way trip. Personal care attendants needed for ADA eligible passengers to make their trip
    are carried at no additional fare.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:10/27/2011
language:English
pages:190