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.
Pages to are hidden for
"AMADOR COUNTY Transit Development Plan"Please download to view full document