El Do SRTP FINAL by wuyunyi

VIEWS: 66 PAGES: 233

									           Western El Dorado County
          2008 Short Range Transit Plan

                              Final Report




   Prepared for the
                      El Dorado County Transportation Commission, and
                      El Dorado County Transit Authority


      Prepared by
                      LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.




TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANTS, INC.
 Western El Dorado County

2008 Short Range Transit Plan




             Prepared for the

El Dorado County Transportation Commission
          2828 Easy Street, Suite 1
        Placerville, California 95667
              (530) 642-5262

                  and the

    El Dorado County Transit Authority
          6565 Commerce Way
    Diamond Springs, California 95619
             (530) 642-5383


                Prepared by

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




               June 18, 2008

                 LSC 077530
                                                                       Executive Summary
The El Dorado County Transportation Commission (EDCTC) retained LSC Transportation Consultants,
Inc. to prepare a 5-Year Short Range Transit 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 Short
Range Transit Plan is presented for the future improvement in El Dorado County Transit Authority
(EDCTA) services.

Study Area

This study considers the portion of El Dorado County to the west of the Sierra Crest. Population of the
area in 2006 is estimated based on U.S. Census data as 144,000. Of this total, 17 percent was elderly (age
60 or above), 2.1 percent was mobility-limited, 6.8 percent were low-income, while 2.8 percent of
households did not own a private vehicle. Population from 2000 to 2006 grew at 2.2 percent per year
countywide. Sacramento Council of Governments (SACOG) projections identify future population
growth of 56.0 percent by 2025. The study presents detailed information on travel and commute patterns.

Existing Transit Services

Western El Dorado County transit services are provided through a joint powers agreement between the
EDCTA, County of El Dorado, and City of Placerville. The EDCTA is governed by a five-member Board
of Directors. Existing services include local fixed-route and deviated fixed-route services (Placerville,
Pollock Pines, Cameron Park, Diamond Springs, Folsom Lake College), rural routes (Grizzly Flat and
South County), Commuter Services to downtown Sacramento, the Iron Point Connector serving Light
Rail in Folsom, Dial-A-Ride, SAC-MED Non-Emergency Medical Appointment Transportation, and
contract services. The service operates a total of 55 vehicles in passenger service. Systemwide ridership
for FY 2006/07 on all EDCTA services was 360,569 one-way passenger-trips, an increase of 24 percent
since FY 2001/02. Ridership growth has been particularly strong on the local routes, which grew by 41
percent over this period.

Other transit providers serving the study area consist of the Senior Shuttle, volunteer programs, the Gold
Country Express airport shuttle service, taxi companies, and vanpool programs. The area is also served by
Amtrak Thruway.

Short-Range Plan

Service Plan

    Establish Deviated Fixed-Route Service in El Dorado Hills – One vehicle will be used to operate
    hourly service generally along the El Dorado Hills Boulevard corridor, from Village Center on the
    north to Valley View Parkway on the south, from roughly 10 AM to 6 PM. This vehicle will also
    serve on-request stops within a three quarters of a mile distance of the route. Schedules will be
    coordinated with service along US 50. Future expansion of this service may be considered if demand
    and financial conditions allow.




Western El Dorado County                                                   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Short Range Transit Plan Executive Summary                                                         Page ES-1
    Ultimately Convert to a “Community – Express” Route System – When financial conditions
    allow and ridership levels warrant, the existing local and Iron Point Connector services will be
    reconfigured to provide hourly express service along the US 50 corridor making limited stops
    between Placerville and Folsom, with the individual communities served by “Community Routes” in
    Placerville, Diamond Springs/Folsom Lake College, Cameron Park/Shingle Springs, and El Dorado
    Hills. This route plan will provide more frequent, more consistent, and faster service throughout the
    corridor.

    Combine Placerville Express and Pollock Pines Routes – The current service plan requires
    passengers traveling between these two routes to transfer at Placerville Station, which is an
    inconvenience and source of stress. These routes will be combined to provide a “one bus” trip
    between Pollock Pines and Missouri Flat.

    Provide Service to New Developments in the Placerville Area – New on-call stops will be added to
    the Placerville Shuttle routes to serve “The Ridge at Orchard Hill” subdivision along Mallard Lane as
    well as the Eskaton Senior Community on Blairs Lane.

    Consider Temporary Changes to Local Routes to Address Construction Delays – EDCTA will
    consider strategies to temporarily modify “interlined” routes in order to minimize delays to
    passengers associated with major long-term construction projects.

    Shift Iron Point Connector Schedule to Better Serve Commute Schedules – EDCTA will shift
    Iron Point Connector schedules mid-day, in order to better serve eastbound commuters in the PM
    commute period and to increase service effectiveness.

    Serve Red Hawk Casino on Iron Point Connector – Reflecting that the Red Hawk Casino will be a
    major new employment center, the Iron Point Connector will be modified slightly to serve a stop at
    the casino. As impacts to operations will be minimal, this is expected to generate increases in fares
    that more than offset the impact on operating costs.

    Consider Changes to Iron Point Connector in Folsom – EDCTA will continue to work with the
    City of Folsom to coordinate services and improve stops, and to modify services as needed to best
    serve new developments (such as the new Kaiser facility).

    Continue to Provide Downtown Sacramento Commuter Service – While it is inequitable that all
    transit costs for downtown service are borne by the “residential end” of the trip, El Dorado County
    residents gain substantial benefits from the existing service that would be significantly degraded if
    services were to be curtailed to require transfers to light rail. This plan continues the current level of
    service to downtown Sacramento, but recognizes that this level represents the maximum that can be
    provided under current funding conditions.

    Consider a Rancho Cordova Stop on Limited Sacramento Commuter Runs Once Local Rancho
    Cordova Services are Improved – It is not cost effective for EDCTA to provide local services to
    employment sites in Rancho Cordova (as least without outside funding). However, if Rancho
    Cordova implements the extensive local transit network currently being planned, EDCTA will
    consider adding a stop on existing services to provide transfer opportunities.

    Eliminate the South County Service – EDCTA will discontinue the 1-day-a-week South County
    Route, reflecting the low ridership (150 one-way rides per year) and low effectiveness (roughly $90
    in subsidy per passenger-trip).


LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                     Western El Dorado County
Page ES-2                                                               Short Range Transit Plan Executive Summary
    Expand Dial-A-Ride Service – An additional 8 vehicle service-hours of Dial-A-Ride service will be
    provided per weekday to meet existing and potential future demand. The daily vehicle service hours
    will be allocated by operations staff depending on anticipated needs and observed operating patterns.

    Contract for Provision of Weekly Georgetown/Cool/Pilot Hill Service to Auburn – EDCTA will
    investigate provision of rural one-day-a-week service between Georgetown, Cool, Pilot Hill, and
    Auburn using a contractor based in Placer County.

    Participate in Regional Efforts to Expand Intercity Transit Service Along US 50 – EDCTC and
    EDCTA should work with others in the region to expand transit services along the US 50 corridor
    where feasible.

Short-Range Capital Plan

    Fleet Replacement and Expansion – A total of 26 vehicles will need to be acquired over the coming
    five years: 23 for replacement of existing vehicles and 3 for expansion of services. Total cost is
    estimated to equal $6,300,000.

    Improvements to Passenger Amenities and Bus Stops – Major projects will consist of the Central
    Transit Center in Diamond Springs, the Bass Lake Road Park-and-Ride, improvements to the
    Ponderosa Road Park-and-Ride, and a new Missouri Flat passenger transfer center and park-and-ride.
    New shelters with benches will be installed at 24 stops, and new benches will be installed at 3 stops.
    Transit schedule displays will be installed at all locations with ten or more boardings per day.

    Improve Transit Security – EDCTA will install alarm, video surveillance, and automatic gates at
    the maintenance facility, and will install mobile video surveillance systems on all commuter and local
    buses. Grants will also be pursued to install solar energy arrays at the maintenance facility.

    Retired Van Donation Program – EDCTA will implement a program to donate older (but still
    useable) vans to community organizations in El Dorado County.

    Enhance the Regional Alternative Transportation Network – Reflecting the synergy between
    public transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel modes, EDCTA will expand bike lockers and racks at
    transit stops, strive to provide expanded bicycle carrying capacity on buses, and work with local
    public works and planning departments to enhance bicycle and pedestrian access to bus stops.

    Implement Advanced Public Transit Technologies – EDCTA will participate in a Sacramento
    region-wide program to implement a “smart card” program to ease regional travel and increase the
    convenience of fare payment and processing. EDCTA will also investigate installation of mobile data
    terminals on buses to aid communications and security.

Short-Range Institutional and Management Plan

    Improve Security Procedures – EDCTA will formalize agreements with local emergency services
    for provision of trained transportation services as part of emergency response efforts in the region.

    Review Local Route Transfer Policy – EDCTA will conduct a focused study of existing transfer use
    on the local route system, and potential ways to address any abuse while minimizing inconvenience to
    passengers and drivers.



Western El Dorado County                                                    LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Short Range Transit Plan Executive Summary                                                          Page ES-3
    Revise Sacramento RT Transfer Agreement – The existing transfer agreement will be modified to
    eliminate the inequitable provision by which each system provides free service to employees of the
    other system.

    Improve Marketing Efforts – Including marketing pieces to encourage additional use of connecting
    services to Sacramento and the Sacramento International Airport, improvements to branding and
    advertising, coordination with social service program managers, enhanced marketing to the Hispanic
    community, and developing an e-mail list that will be used to notify passengers of service changes or
    interruptions.

    Revise Minimum Farebox Return Requirement – In accordance with TDA and reflecting the
    mixed urban/rural status of Western El Dorado County, EDCTC will submit to Caltrans a request to
    change the minimum farebox return ratio from 10.0 percent to 11.5 percent.

Short-Range Financial Plan

Reflecting recent economic trends, Local Transportation Funds (LTF) are assumed to remain flat through
the end of FY 2008/09, and then to increase by a relatively low rate of 3 percent per year. To address
increasing costs in light of this constraint on EDCTA’s most important source of operating funds and also
to address current inequities in the overall fare program, the following fare increases will be implemented:

    In FY 2008/09, the Senior Day Care subscription fare will be increased from $2.00 to $3.00 per day
    (round trip).

    In FY 2008/09, the Dial-A-Ride zone fare system will be modified by increasing fares in the El
    Dorado Hills and Cameron Park zones to match the fares currently charged for trips of similar length
    (and operating cost) in other zones.

    In FY 2008/09, a $1.25 fare will be established for elderly/disabled passengers on the Iron Point
    Connector, in order to allow future use of FTA Section 5307 funds on this service.

    In FY 2009/10, the Dial-A-Ride base fare will be increase from $3.00 to $4.00 for the general public,
    and from $1.50 to $2.00 for elderly/disabled passengers.

    In FY 2009/10, the Local Route base fare will be increased from $1.10 to $1.25 for the general public
    and from $$0.55 to $0.60 for elderly/disabled passengers.

A FTA 5316 (Jobs Access/Reverse Commute) grant is included in the plan to implement the
Community/Express plan element. Proposition 1B funds are allocated for major capital and security plan
elements. Other funding sources are also assumed to change in a conservative fashion. Considering all
operating and capital costs, positive fund balances can be maintained through the plan period for both the
Capital Fund and the Section 5307 Fund. The Capital Fund is forecast to have a minimum balance of
$218,700 which is a reasonable level to address short-term funding needs, or changes in state or Federal
funding levels. Overall, under this plan EDCTA ridership will grow by 36 percent over current levels,
while still maintaining strong financial conditions.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                  Western El Dorado County
Page ES-4                                                            Short Range Transit Plan Executive Summary
                                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter                                                                                                                  Page

1     Introduction..............................................................................................................1
          Key Study Issues................................................................................................1

2     Study Area Characteristics.......................................................................................3
         Study Area .........................................................................................................3
         Population ..........................................................................................................3
         Major Activity Centers ....................................................................................10
         Economy ..........................................................................................................10
         Employment.....................................................................................................10
         Means of Transportation to Work....................................................................17
         Commute Patterns............................................................................................19
         Traffic Conditions............................................................................................19
         Planned Development ......................................................................................21
         Existing Planning Processes ............................................................................23
         Air Quality .......................................................................................................32
         Findings of El Dorado County’s Unmet Transit Needs...................................32

3     Transportation Services .........................................................................................35
         Background ......................................................................................................35
         Existing El Dorado Transit Services................................................................35
         Existing Service Calendar................................................................................44
         Existing Fare Media.........................................................................................45
         Discontinued Transit Services .........................................................................46
         Existing Ridership and Service Levels ............................................................46
         Financial Characteristics..................................................................................74
         Fiscal Year 2006/07 System Performance Analysis........................................77
         Transit Capital Assets ......................................................................................87
         El Dorado County Transit Authority Transit Passenger Characteristics .........95
         Other Transit Providers in El Dorado County .................................................95
         Regional Transportation Service......................................................................97

4     Transit Demand Analysis.......................................................................................99
         Non-Program Demand Estimation...................................................................99
         Non-Program Rural Demand Estimation.......................................................104
         Social Service Program-Related Transit Demand .........................................104
         Summary of Short-Range Transit Demand....................................................109

5     EDCTA Goals and Objectives Analysis ..............................................................113
        Background ....................................................................................................113
        Review of Existing Adopted Goals................................................................113
        Recommended Goals, Performance Measures, and Standards......................116



Western El Dorado County                                                                 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                                        Page i
                                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter                                                                                                              Page

6      Service Alternatives .............................................................................................123
          Deviated Fixed-Route Service Alternatives...................................................123
          Iron Point Connector Service Alternatives ....................................................134
          Commuter Service Alternatives.....................................................................136
          Rural Route Alternatives................................................................................143
          Dial-A-Ride/SAC-MED Alternatives............................................................145
          Comparison of Short-Range Service Alternatives.........................................147

7      Capital Alternatives .............................................................................................153
          Vehicle Alternatives.......................................................................................153
          Passenger Facilities........................................................................................160
          Advanced Public Transit System Technologies ............................................163

8      Institutional and Management Alternatives .........................................................171
           Contracting for Transit Services ....................................................................171
           Greater Sacramento Regional Commuter Transit Funding Workshops ........172
           Transfer Policy...............................................................................................173
           Safety and Security ........................................................................................174
           Marketing Improvements...............................................................................176

9      Financial Alternatives ..........................................................................................181
          Federal Transit Funding Sources ...................................................................181
          State Transit Funding Sources .......................................................................184
          Local Transit Funding Sources ......................................................................185
          Increased Passenger Revenues.......................................................................186

10     Short-Range Transit Plan.....................................................................................193
          Service Plan ...................................................................................................193
          Capital Plan....................................................................................................202
          Institutional and Management Plan ...............................................................206
          Financial Plan.................................................................................................209
          Implementation Plan ......................................................................................218


                                           LIST OF TABLES
Table                                                                                                                Page

1      El Dorado Countywide Population History .............................................................5
2      Western El Dorado County 2000 Demographic Data by Census Tract...................6
3      Major Activity Centers in Western El Dorado County..........................................13
4      El Dorado Countywide 2007 Labor Force Data ....................................................17
5      Major Employers in Western El Dorado County...................................................18


LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc                                                              Western El Dorado County       .
Page ii                                                                                       2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                          LIST OF TABLES
Table                                                                                                               Page

 6    Estimated Travel-To-Work Mode Split .................................................................18
 7    Commuter Patterns To and From El Dorado County ............................................20
 8    El Dorado County Transit Authority Fare Structure..............................................45
 9    Sacramento Regional Transit Fare Media Tally for Fiscal Year 2006/07 .............47
10    El Dorado County Transit Authority Historical Ridership ....................................49
11    El Dorado County Transit Authority – Local and Rural
       Routes Historical Ridership .................................................................................53
12    El Dorado County Transit Authority Historical Annual
       Vehicle Hours of Service .....................................................................................55
13    El Dorado Transit Historical Annual Vehicle Miles of Service ............................57
14    El Dorado County Transit Authority Historical Productivity................................58
15    El Dorado County Transit Authority Ridership by Day of Week .........................59
16    Total El Dorado County Transit Authority Ridership by Month
       Fiscal Year 2006/07 .............................................................................................61
17    El Dorado County Transit Authority Placerville Routes Average
       Weekday Passenger Activity by Stop ..................................................................62
18    El Dorado County Transit Authority Cameron Park Routes Average
       Weekday Passenger Activity by Stop ..................................................................63
19    El Dorado County Transit Authority Diamond Springs Routes Average
       Weekday Passenger Activity by Stop ..................................................................63
20    El Dorado County Transit Authority Folsom Lake College Routes
       Average Weekday Passenger Activity by Stop ...................................................65
21    El Dorado County Transit Authority Pollock Pines Routes Average
       Weekday Passenger Activity by Stop ..................................................................65
22    El Dorado County Transit Authority Rural Routes Average Weekday
       Passenger Activity by Stop ..................................................................................66
23    El Dorado County Transit Authority Total Average Weekday Passenger
       Activity for Local and Rural Routes....................................................................67
24    Dial-A-Ride Origin/Destination Trip Patterns – October 24, 2006.......................71
25    El Dorado County Transit Authority Average Weekday Commuter
       Route Boarding Summary....................................................................................73
26    El Dorado County Transit Authority Commuter Route Average Weekday
       Boardings by Stop................................................................................................74
27    El Dorado County Transit Authority Average Weekday Iron Point
       Commuter Passengers..........................................................................................75
28    El Dorado County Transit Authority Cost Allocation Model,
       Fiscal Year 2006/07 .............................................................................................76
29    El Dorado County Transit Authority Revenues, Fiscal Years 2002/03
       through 2007/08 ...................................................................................................77
30    El Dorado County Transit Authority Operating Data and Performance
       Indicators – Local/Rural Routes and Special Event Services (2 pages) ........79, 80
31    El Dorado County Transit Authority Shelter and Bench Locations ......................91
32    El Dorado County Transit Authority Vehicle Inventory and Mileage ..................92

Western El Dorado County                                                              LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                                    Page iii
                                           LIST OF TABLES
Table                                                                                                               Page

33     Western El Dorado County Demographic Projections (2015)
        by Census Tract..................................................................................................100
34     Western El Dorado County Employee Transit Use Method of Urban
        Demand Estimation............................................................................................101
35     Western El Dorado County Modal Split Method of Demand Estimation ...........103
36     Transit Cooperative Research Program Method of Rural Demand
        Estimation – 2000 Data Inputs...........................................................................105
37     Transit Cooperative Research Program Method of Rural Demand
        Estimation – 2000 Estimates..............................................................................106
38     Transit Cooperative Research Program Method of Rural Demand
        Estimation – 2015 Data Inputs...........................................................................107
39     Transit Cooperative Research Program Method of Rural Demand
        Estimation – 2015 Estimates..............................................................................108
40     El Dorado County Program-Related Transit Demand .........................................108
41     Summary of Western El Dorado County Transit Demand ..................................110
42     Western El Dorado County Goals and Standards for Transit Service .................117
43     El Dorado County Transit Authority Service Alternatives..................................126
44     Ridership Analysis of Commuter Route Reductions ...........................................138
45     Evaluation of Systemwide Farebox Ratio with Commuter Route Reduction .....139
46     El Dorado County Transit Authority Service Alternatives
        Performance Analysis ........................................................................................151
47     Peer Review of Dial-A-Ride Route Fares............................................................188
48     Peer Fare Review on Commuter Downtown Sacramento Services.....................190
49     Peer Fare Review – Local Routes........................................................................192
50     Revised Iron Point Connector Schedule ..............................................................199
51     El Dorado County Transit Authority Bus Stop Improvement Program ..............205
52     El Dorado County Transit Authority SRTP – Estimated Operating Cost ...........211
53     El Dorado County Transit Authority SRTP – Estimated Ridership ....................212
54     El Dorado County Transit Authority SRTP – Estimated Farebox Revenues ......213
55     El Dorado County Transit Authority SRTP – Capital Plan .................................214
56     El Dorado County Transit Authority SRTP – Financial Plan..............................216


                                          LIST OF FIGURES
Figure                                                                                                              Page

1      Western El Dorado County Site and Location.........................................................4
2      Western El Dorado County Census Tracts Map ......................................................7
3      Western El Dorado County Elderly Population by Census Tract............................8
4      Western El Dorado County Mobility Limited Persons by Census Tract.................9
5      Western El Dorado County Persons Below Poverty Level by Census Tract ........11



LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc                                                             Western El Dorado County       .
Page iv                                                                                      2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                           LIST OF FIGURES
Figure                                                                                                                   Page

6     Western El Dorado County Zero Vehicle Households by Census Tract ...............12
7     El Dorado County Transit Authority Transit Activity Centers..............................15
8     El Dorado County Transit Authority Approved Organization Chart
       Fiscal Year 2007/08 .............................................................................................36
 9    El Dorado County Transit Authority Local Fixed-Routes.....................................37
10    Western El Dorado County and Sacramento Commuter Bus Route Bus Map......38
11    El Dorado County Transit Authority Dial-A-Ride Zone System Map ..................42
12    El Dorado County Transit Authority Annual Ridership ........................................50
13    El Dorado County Transit Authority Historical Ridership by Service ..................51
14    Proportion of Annual El Dorado County Transit Authority
       Ridership by Service ............................................................................................52
15    El Dorado County Transit Authority Annual Vehicle-Hours of Service...............56
16    El Dorado County Transit Authority Average Weekday Boardings by
       Hour - Placerville Routes.....................................................................................68
17    El Dorado County Transit Authority Average Weekday Boardings by
       Hour – Cameron Park/Diamond Springs/Folsom Lake College Routes .............69
18    El Dorado County Transit Authority Average Weekday Boardings by
       Hour – Pollock Pines Route.................................................................................70
19    Average Weekday Dial-A-Ride Pickups by Hour of Day .....................................72
20    El Dorado County Transit Authority Annual Ridership, Fiscal
       Year 2006/07........................................................................................................81
21    El Dorado County Transit Authority Annual Operating Cost,
       Fiscal Year 2006/07 .............................................................................................82
22    El Dorado County Transit Authority Annual Operating Subsidy,
       Fiscal Year 2006/07 .............................................................................................83
23    Proportion of Annual El Dorado County Transit Authority
       Operating Subsidy................................................................................................84
24    El Dorado County Transit Authority Farebox Recovery Ratio,
       Fiscal Year 2006/07 .............................................................................................85
25    El Dorado County Transit Authority Operating Cost/Trip,
       Fiscal Year 2006/07 .............................................................................................87
26    El Dorado County Transit Authority Operating Subsidy/Trip,
       Fiscal Year 2006/07 .............................................................................................88
27    El Dorado County Transit Authority Trips/Vehicle Service Hours,
       Fiscal Year 2006/07 .............................................................................................89
28    El Dorado County Transit Authority Trips/Vehicle Service Miles,
       Fiscal Year 2006/07 .............................................................................................90
29    El Dorado County Transit Authority Existing Bus Stop Shelters and
       Benches ................................................................................................................93
30    El Dorado County Transit Authority Weekday Vehicle Utilization by
       Route & Time of Day ..........................................................................................94
31    Western El Dorado County Urban Transit Demand ............................................111


Western El Dorado County                                                                 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                                        Page v
                                       LIST OF FIGURES
Figure                                                                                                      Page

32     Western El Dorado County Rural Transit Demand .............................................111
33     Potential El Dorado Hills Deviated Fixed-Route.................................................124
34     Community/Express Route Alternative ...............................................................128
35     Annual Ridership by Alternative .........................................................................148
36     Annual Subsidy Requirement by Alternative ......................................................149
37     El Dorado County Transit Authority Short-Range Transit Plan..........................194
38     Recommended El Dorado Hills Deviated Fixed-Route.......................................195
39     Annual LTF Revenue Available to El Dorado County Transit Authority...........217




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc                                                      Western El Dorado County     .
Page vi                                                                               2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                                                                  Chapter 1
                                                                                        Introduction
Public transportation serves important roles in Western El Dorado County, providing mobility to area
residents and employees, helping to solve environmental conditions, and contributing to the economy of
the region. Like any business, it is important that an ongoing planning process be followed to guide the
provision of public transportation services. The El Dorado County Transportation Commission (EDCTC)
was awarded a Transit Technical Assistance Grant by Caltrans to develop a Short Range Transit Plan for
the western slope of El Dorado County. This plan updates a previous Short and Long Range Transit Plan
conducted for the area in 2003, developed to span the years of 2003/04 through 2007/08. This current
plan guides transit operations over the next five years (2008/09 through 2012/13). The EDCTC retained
the services of LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. (LSC) to develop this plan.

This Plan first presents a review of the setting for transit services such as demographic and employment
conditions in Western El Dorado County, as well as a detailed analysis of current services being provided,
and an evaluation of current goals and objectives for the El Dorado County Transit Authority. Next the
overall demand for transit services in the region is evaluated. This information was then used to develop
service, capital, financial, and institutional alternatives for EDCTA. Finally, a detailed five-year operating
and financial plan is presented along with an approximate schedule for implementation.

KEY STUDY ISSUES
The Social Services Transit Advisory Committee (SSTAC), EDCTC Policy Advisory Committee (PAC),
and EDCTA Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), along with transit staff, provided oversight and input
for this Short Range Transit Plan. Through meetings with the advisory committees and the public,
stakeholder interviews, and discussions with transit staff, the following key transit issues have been
identified for the study:

    Needs for transit services are increasing, due to growth, development, and changes in demographics.
    In particular, the need for senior transportation is increasing as County residents “age in place.”

    Service to new development needs to be considered, particularly in El Dorado Hills (commercial and
    residential), Placerville, along Green Valley Road, and the Red Hawk Casino.

    Demand for the general public DAR system significantly exceeds the capacity.

    While there are mobility needs in remote rural portions of the area (particularly as an important link
    to social services), services already provided to these areas have low productivity.

    Some existing services have relatively low productivity and merit review.

    The need for transit services over the El Dorado/Sacramento County line is growing in both
    directions. The appropriate role of the EDCTA needs to be defined.

These issues provided guidance for the direction of the study.




Western El Dorado County                                                      LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                             Page 1
                                       This page left intentionally blank.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                            Western El Dorado County
Page 2                                                                       2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                                                                Chapter 2
                                                           Study Area Characteristics
STUDY AREA
El Dorado County is located in the foothills and mountains of the Sierra Nevada, in East-Central
California. The terrain ranges from the rolling hills at the edge of the Sacramento Valley to the high peaks
of the Sierra, with over half of the land in public ownership. This study considers the western slope of El
Dorado County (west of the Sierra Crest) including Placerville, Cameron Park, El Dorado Hills, Pollock
Pines, and Diamond Springs, as well as smaller communities. The City of Placerville is the County seat
and is currently the only incorporated town within the study area.

Part bedroom community, part idyllic rural community, and also a tourist destination, El Dorado County
is a desirable location to live and visit, and has experienced residential and tourism growth in recent
years. In particular, the area’s proximity to employment opportunities in Sacramento County has
generated substantial suburban growth in the western portion of the County.

Western El Dorado County (excluding the Tahoe Basin) is approximately 1.1 million acres in size.
Natural resource uses comprise approximately 66.0 percent (722,175 acres) of this total area. The
remaining acreage in Western El Dorado County is comprised of one incorporated city, residential, public
land, industrial, commercial, and state and county roads. The study area is presented in Figure 1.

The major arterial east/west access is provided by US Highway 50 (US 50), connecting the area with
Sacramento to the west and South Lake Tahoe and Carson City, Nevada to the east. North/south highway
access to the area is provided by Highway 49, connecting the area with Auburn to the northwest and
Sonora to the southeast. State Route 193 provides northern access to Georgetown.

POPULATION
Historical Population

A key factor regarding future trends in transit need is change in population. The relatively undeveloped
character of the County, coupled with the study area’s proximity to the growing Sacramento area, has
resulted in substantial and continuing population growth. Population growth trends over the past 30 years
for the County and the State are presented in Table 1. As presented, the annual population growth rate in
El Dorado County over the 1990s was 2.2 percent, which exceeded that of California as a whole. Further,
based on the most current population data provided by the U.S. Census for 2006, the population of the
County has grown at the annual rate of 2.2 percent since 2000, a faster growth rate than that of the state,
which has seen a 1.2 percent growth rate over the past six years.

Potentially Transit Dependent Population

Nationwide, transit system ridership is drawn largely from various groups of persons who make up what
is often called the “potentially 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.




Western El Dorado County                                                    LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                           Page 3
                                                                                                                                                                                                   FIGURE 1




Page 4
                                                                                                                            Western El Dorado County Site and Location
                                                                    49
                                                                                                                 \80
                                                                                                                 ]
                                                                                                                 ^

                                                                         LEGEND
                                                                      HIGHWAYS                                                                                                                                                                                              LAKE
                                                                      ROADS                                                                                                                                                                                                TAHOE
                                                                      LAKES                                                                                  PLACER COUNTY
                                                                      COUNTY BOUNDARY
                                                                      URBAN AREA




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                                                                                                                                              RTH




                                                                                                                                                                    SP
                                                                                                                                                            WO
                                                                                                                                                          NT




                                                                                                                                                                       RI
                                                                                                                                                        WE




                                                                                                                                                                         NG
                                                                                                                                                                           S
                                                                                                                                                                                  RD
                                                                                                                                                                                     .
                                                                               49
                                                                                                                                    193      GEORGETOWN

                                                                                                    COOL
                                             193
                                                                                                                            GARDEN
                                                                                                                            VALLEY                                                                       PINO
                                                                                                                                                                                                         GRANDE
                                                                                                         PILOT
                                                                                                          HILL                                                                                                                                                                     50
                                            ]
                                            \80
                                            ^                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      _

                                                                                                                       49
                                                                                                                                COLOMA                                        .
                                                                                                                                                                          RD                                              EL DORADO COUNTY
                                                                                                                                                                     TO
                                                                                                                   LOTUS                                        Q UI
                                                                                                                                                            MOS


                                                                                                                                                                                                   POLLOCK
                                                                                                                                                                                                   PINES                        FRESH
                                                                                                                                                                       CAMINO                                                   POND
                                                                                                                                           PLACERVILLE
                                                                                                                       RESCUE                                                                                               .        RMON
                                                      FOLSOM                                                                                                                                                                      MO      EM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          RD                IGR
                                                       RES.                                                                                                                                                          RK                        ANT
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     TRA
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  PA                                    IL
                                                                                                                                                                                                              Y
                                                                        EL                                                                                                                                  SL
                                                                      DORADO
                                                                       HILLS
                                                                                                    CAMERON                                   DIAMOND
                                                                                                    PARK                                      SPRINGS                  PLEASANT
                                                      FOLSOM                                                            SHINGLE                                        VALLEY
                                                                                                                        SPRINGS
                                                                                                                                                                                         GR
                                                                                                                                                                                              IZZ
                                                               50
                                                               _                                                                                                    SOMERSET                     LY FL
                                                                                                                                                                                                     AT
                                                                                                                                                                                                        R




                                                                                                                                                                                                          D.                     GRIZZLY
                                                                                    LA                                                                                                                                           FLAT
                                                                                      TR                                                                              .




                                                                SAC
                                                                                           O                                                                        RD
                                                                                               BE
                                                                                                                                                               UM




                                                                    RA
                                                                                                    RD
                                                                                                         .                                                   UK

                                                                                                                                                              A
                                                                                                                                           NASHVILLE
                                                                                                                                                           MT




                                                                    MEN
                                                                                                                                                                  MT AUKUM




                                                                        TO
                                                                                       LATROBE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             EL DORADO
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              COUNTY
                                                                                                                                      49




                                                                         COU
                                                                             NTY
                                                                                                                                     SCALE
                                                                                                                                0                  5                                                                                                                 CALIFORNIA
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  AMADOR COUNTY




                                       Eldoradosite
                                                                                                                                     IN MILES




   Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                  TRANSPORTATION
                                                  CONSULTANTS, INC.
TABLE 1: El Dorado Countywide Population History
                                                                                                                           1
                                          1970              1980               1990                 2000            2006

El Dorado County Population             43,833             85,812             125,995              156,299         178,066
Annual Percent Growth                     –                 6.9%               3.9%                 2.2%            2.2%
Over Previous 10 Years                    –                95.8%               46.8%                24.1%             –

California                            19,953,134         23,667,902         29,760,021         33,871,648        36,457,549
Annual Percent Growth                     –                 1.7%               2.3%               1.3%              1.2%
Over Previous 10 Years                    –                18.6%              25.7%              13.8%                –


NOTE 1: Population obtained from the 2006 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census

Source: U.S. Census Bureau



Table 2 presents the transit dependent population by census tract in Western El Dorado County from the
2000 U.S. Census data. Figure 2 presents the census divisions in the study area that correspond to this
table. (Unfortunately, this 2000 data is the most recent available at a level beyond the countywide totals.)
As presented in the table, the population of Western El Dorado County in 2000 was 122,257. The greatest
population density was found in the census tracts that comprise El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park, with
up to 2,857 persons per square mile. In comparison, the average density in Western El Dorado County
was 79 persons per square mile, based on 122,257 persons and 1,551.4 total square miles.

There were an estimated 22,059 persons aged 60 or over residing in Western El Dorado County,
comprising 18.0 percent of the total population. This proportion was slightly higher than the statewide
average of 14.0 percent. Indeed, only 5 of the 27 census tracts in Western El Dorado County had a lower
proportion of seniors to the total population than the statewide average. The percentage of elderly persons
was distributed fairly evenly throughout Western El Dorado County, although relatively high proportions
of elderly residents were found in the Southeast County and South Missouri Flat areas. On an absolute
basis, it is interesting to note that census tracts with relatively high numbers of elderly residents are
located in many portions of the study area, with census tracts exceeding 1,000 residents located in Garden
Valley, Cameron Park, Placerville, Pleasant Valley, South Missouri Flat, and Deer Park. This information
is presented graphically in Figure 3.

The U.S. Census Bureau defines “mobility limited” as persons having a health condition lasting more
than six months that makes it difficult to go outside the home alone. It is estimated there were 2,718
mobility limited persons in Western El Dorado County in 2000, which comprised 2.2 percent of the study
area population. In comparison, the statewide average was 5.1 percent. The Northwest Placerville area
had the greatest concentration of mobility limited persons within the study area, both in terms of absolute
numbers (256) and percentage (4.5 percent). In total, almost as many mobility limited residents live in the
Cameron Park census tracts (447) as live in the central Placerville census tracts (449). This information is
presented graphically in Figure 4.

Low-income persons are another likely market for transit services, as measured by the number of persons
living below the poverty level. An estimated 6,848 low-income persons reside in the study area,
representing 5.6 percent of the total Western El Dorado County population. In comparison, the statewide
average was significantly higher at 13.5 percent. The proportion of residents below poverty status was
highest in the South Placerville and South Missouri Flat areas. Census tracts with relatively high absolute


Western El Dorado County                                                                LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                                       Page 5
                                       TABLE 2: Western El Dorado County 2000 Demographic Data by Census Tract




Page 6
                                                      Shaded Areas Represent Urban Areas
                                                                                                                                                              Elderly Persons          Mobility Limited   Persons Below Poverty      Zero-Vehicles Per
                                                                                                                         Population          Households     (Aged 60 and Over)          Persons (1)             Status (2)              Household
                                         Census                                                                                    Per Sq.                   Total      Percent of    Total Percent of      Total     Percent of    Total      Percent of
                                                                         Description                   Square Miles Total Number             Total Number
                                          Tract                                                                                     Mile                    Number        Area       Number   Area         Number       Area       Number        Area


                                          306.01      Pilot Hill / Cool                                     63.6       4,607         72.4       1,674          799       17.3%          87       1.9%         99       2.1%           19        1.1%
                                          306.02      Greenwood / Garden Valley                             137.8      5,786         42.0       2,149         1,118      19.3%         114       2.0%        437       7.6%           59        2.7%
                                          306.03      North Central County                                  474.7      2,787          5.9       1,108          560       20.1%          48       1.7%        202       7.2%           14        1.3%
                                          307.01      Zee Estates / Lakeridge Oaks                           5.2       5,442       1,054.7      1,783         515         9.5%          11       0.2%         91       1.7%            0        0.0%




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                          307.02      Hidden Valley / Crescent Ridge Village                 4.8       5,766       1,191.3      1,938         716        12.4%          94       1.6%        36        0.6%           0         0.0%
                                          307.03      Greenvalley Acres / Oak Ridge Village                 11.8       7,059        596.7       2,248         694         9.8%          54       0.8%        89        1.3%           16        0.7%
                                          307.04      Clarksville / Latrobe                                 55.3       1,905         34.5        666          261        13.7%          20       1.0%        116       6.1%           6         0.9%
                                          308.01      Deer Valley / Rescue                                  23.9       3,730        156.2       1,275         543        14.6%         163       4.4%        37        1.0%           33        2.6%
                                          308.03      East Cameron Park                                      9.4       5,795        616.5       2,176         1,114      19.2%         166       2.9%        255       4.4%          109        5.0%
                                          308.04      Shingle Springs / Frenchtown                          26.7       5,758        215.7       2,051          980       17.0%         130       2.3%        195       3.4%           21        1.0%
                                          308.05      West Cameron Park                                      4.0       9,173       2,281.8      3,217        1,075       11.7%         236       2.6%        443       4.8%           29        0.9%
                                          308.06      Central Cameron Park                                   1.8       5,199       2,856.6      1,988         915        17.6%          45       0.9%        253       4.9%           74        3.7%
                                          309.01      Coloma / Lotus Road Area                              25.1       2,709        108.1       1,002         474        17.5%          9        0.3%        151       5.6%           13        1.3%
                                          309.02      N. Greenstone / Missouri Flat Area                    19.5       4,367        223.9       1,555         808        18.5%          90       2.1%        351       8.0%           30        1.9%
                                          310.00      Northwest Placerville                                 10.4       5,750        552.9       2,367        1,231       21.4%         256       4.5%        254       4.4%          194        8.2%
                                          311.00      North Placerville                                     14.2       5,084        357.0       2,135        1,064       20.9%          18       0.4%        459       9.0%          189        8.9%
                                          312.00      South Placerville                                      8.1       4,824        597.0       1,832        1,093       22.7%         175       3.6%        590       12.2%          76        4.1%
                                          313.01      Smith Flat / Camino                                   17.9       3,403        190.0       1,358         825        24.2%          76       2.2%        315       9.3%           51        3.8%
                                          313.02      N. Pollock Pines / Cedar Grove                        12.8       4,644        364.2       1,923        1,045       22.5%         133       2.9%        435       9.4%          146        7.6%
                                          314.02      Somerset / Mt. Aukum                                  305.7      4,847        15.9        1,863         964        19.9%         181       3.7%        314       6.5%           19        1.0%
                                          314.03      Southeast County                                      190.6        94           0.5         49           26        27.7%          0        0.0%          0       0.0%           6         12.2%
                                          314.04      Newton / Old Fort Jim                                 15.8       2,241        141.9        803          384        17.1%          64       2.9%        127       5.7%           50        6.2%
                                          314.05      Rancho Del Sol / Gold Ridge                           10.9       2,438        222.9        895          480        19.7%          47       1.9%        159       6.5%           24        2.7%
                                          314.06      Fresh Pond / Pleasant Valley                          30.0       5,298        176.6       2,004        1,057       20.0%         121       2.3%        386       7.3%           41        2.0%
                                          315.02      South Missouri Flat Area                              10.2       5,643        551.6       2,316        1,551       27.5%         167       3.0%        520       9.2%          149        6.4%
                                          315.03      Kingsville / Nashville                                38.3       2,635        68.7        1,013         545        20.7%          83       3.1%        186       7.1%           37        3.7%
                                          315.04      Deer Park Area                                        22.8       5,273        231.2       2,066        1,222       23.2%         130       2.5%        348       6.6%          112        5.4%

                                                      Western El Dorado County Totals                       1,551     122,257       78.8       45,454        22,059      18.0%        2,718      2.2%       6,848       5.6%        1,517        3.3%

                                                      State of California Totals                          160,042   33,871,648     211.6      12,214,549    4,742,499    14.0%       1,718,472   5.1%     4,565,256    13.5%       1,091,214     8.9%

                                       Note 1: Mobility Limited includes persons aged 16 to 64.

                                       Note 2: Poverty Status includes persons aged 0 to 64.


                                       Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000; California Department of Finance




   Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                                                                                                                  FIGURE 2
                                                                                                    Western El Dorado County Census Tracts Map

                                                                                                                                                                                                         LAKE
                                                                                                                                                                                                        TAHOE




Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                                                                                      30602


                                                                        49
                                                                                                                                                                                                      EASTERN
                                                                                                                   GEORGETOWN
                                                                                                                                                                                                     EL DORADO
                                                                                COOL                                                                                                                  COUNTY
                                                                                                     GARDEN
                                                                                                     VALLEY

                                                                                PILOT                                                                          30603
                                                                                 HILL

                                                                        30601
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 50
                                                                                                         COLOMA

                                                                                           LOTUS
                                                                                           30901
                                                                                                                                                  31302
                                                                                                                                       31301     POLLOCK
                                                                                                                         31100                   PINES
                                                                                                            31000                   CAMINO
                                                                                                               PLACERVILLE
                                                           30701              30801             RESCUE                                         31301
                                        FOLSOM                                                                                                                                 31403
                                       RESERVOIR                                                   30902               31200
                                                                                                                                                       31406
                                                                    EL                                        31502
                                                                  DORADO                                                         31404
                                                                   HILLS




                                                           307
                                                                                        30803                       DIAMOND




                                                                                  308
                                                                      30703                                         SPRINGS        PLEASANT




                                                             02
                                                                                                                                    VALLEY




                                                                                      06
                                                                              30805             SHINGLE
                                                                                                SPRINGS                31504
                                                           50
                                                                                           30804


                                                                                                                                                               31402
                                                                                                                                                                GRIZZLY FLAT
                                                                                                     31503
                                                                                30704
                                                                                                                                 MT AUKUM

                                                                                                              49
                                                                                                                                                                                           LEGEND
                                                                                                                                                                                         HIGHWAYS
                                                                                                                   SCALE                                                                 LAKES
                                                                                                     0               5            10                                                     COUNTY BOUNDARY
                                                                                                                                                                                         CENSUS TRACT BOUNDARY
                                                                                                                   IN MILES                                                        10001 CENSUS TRACT NUMBER




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                            Page 7
                                       eldoradotracts
                                                  TRANSPORTATION
                                                  CONSULTANTS, INC.
                                                                                                                   FIGURE 3




Page 8
                                                                                  Western El Dorado County Elderly Population by Census Tract




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                                                             49
                                                                                                                                                        EASTERN
                                                                                                                                                       EL DORADO
                                                                                                                                                        COUNTY




                                                                                                                                                                  50




                                                                   50




                                                                                                                                              LEGEND
                                                                                                                                          HIGHWAYS
                                                                                              49                                          LAKES
                                                                                                                                          COUNTY BOUNDARY
                                                                                                                                          CENSUS TRACT BOUNDARY
                                                                                                   SCALE                                  0-519 ELDERLY PERSONS
                                                                                          0          5        10                          520-809 ELDERLY PERSONS
                                                                                                                                          810-1069 ELDERLY PERSONS
                                                                                                                                          1070-1600 ELDERLY PERSONS
                                                                                                   IN MILES




   Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                       ELDORADOELDERLY
                                                         TRANSPORTATION
                                                         CONSULTANTS, INC.
                                                                                                          FIGURE 4
                                                                    Western El Dorado County Mobility Limited Persons by Census Tract




Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                                          49
                                                                                                                                                 EASTERN
                                                                                                                                                EL DORADO
                                                                                                                                                 COUNTY




                                                                                                                                                              50




                                                                   50




                                                                                     49                                          LEGEND
                                                                                                                           HIGHWAYS
                                                                                                                           LAKES
                                                                                          SCALE                            COUNTY BOUNDARY
                                                                                 0          5        10                    0-46 MOBILITY LIMITED PERSONS
                                                                                                                           47-89 MOBILITY LIMITED PERSONS
                                                                                          IN MILES                         90-139 MOBILITY LIMITED PERSONS
                                                                                                                           140-260 MOBILITY LIMITED PERSONS




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                            Page 9
                                                      TRANSPORTATION




                                       ELDORADOMOBILITY
                                                      CONSULTANTS, INC.
populations of low-income persons were found in many parts of the study area; tracts with more than 400
low-income residents were in Garden Valley, Cameron Park, Central Placerville, Pollock Pines, and
Missouri Flat. In comparison, the absolute value and proportion of low-income residents in the El Dorado
Hills tracts was substantially below the study area average. See Figure 5 for details.

The number of households without access to an operable vehicle in 2000 was estimated at 1,517, as
presented in Table 2 above. This represents 3.3 percent of the total households in the study area. In
comparison, the statewide average was significantly higher at 8.9 percent. Census tracts with over 100
zero-vehicle households were found in Cameron Park, central Placerville, Pollock Pines, Missouri Flat,
and Deer Park. At the other extreme, only 16 of the 4,969 households in the El Dorado Hills census tracts
did not have a car available (0.2 percent). See Figure 6 for a graphic representation.

The U.S. Census 2006 American Community Survey also provided information regarding the potentially
transit dependent population. While the information presented is available only for the entire County,
rather than the western portion only, it can still be used to identify current overall trends. This recent data
from the U.S. Census suggests that an overall proportion of population that is potentially transit
dependent has not changed significantly. The proportion of persons in the County 60 years-old or over
has stayed steady, comprising 16.6 percent (26,023 persons) of the population in 2000 and 16.5 percent
(29,380 persons) in 2006. The mobility limited population in 2006 totaled 3,857 persons (2.1 percent),
compared to 4,393 persons (2.8 percent) in 2000. The number of low income persons has increased from
6.5 percent (10,113 persons) in 2000 to 6.8 percent (12,036 persons) in 2006, while the number of
households with no vehicle available has decreased from 2,688 in 2000 to 1,943 households in 2006.

MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS
There are a number of activity centers in Western El Dorado County which potentially generate transit
demand. These can be categorized by health services, services for the elderly, services for individuals
with disabilities, employment centers, and services for low income individuals and families. Table 3 and
Figure 7 highlight the most important activity centers in the study area.

Some important medical facilities are located outside of the County boundary in Folsom. Kaiser medical
offices are located at 2155 Iron Point Road in Folsom and a new hospital and surgery center are also
planned in Folsom on Palacio and Iron Point Road.

ECONOMY
Historically, the local economy in Western El Dorado County was based on mining and agriculture.
Today, services, retail trade, and government industries dominate the current economic base.
Additionally, many development professionals, high-tech companies, and hardware and design firms add
to the diversity of the economy.

EMPLOYMENT
The California Employment Development Department provides labor force data. Recent data for 2007
shows that the unemployment rate has increased from 3.9 percent in 2000 to 4.8 percent countywide and
to 4.2 percent in Western El Dorado County, as shown in Table 4. This increase in unemployment may be
attributed to a number of factors, namely the current overall economic climate and a large number of
seasonal and recreational jobs available throughout the County.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                    Western El Dorado County
Page 10                                                                              2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                                                                       FIGURE 5
                                                            Western El Dorado County Persons Below Poverty Level by Census Tract




Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                                         49
                                                                                                                                           EASTERN
                                                                                                                                          EL DORADO
                                                                                                                                           COUNTY




                                                                                                                                                     50




                                                              50




                                                                                  49
                                                                                                                            LEGEND
                                                                                                                   HIGHWAYS
                                                                                       SCALE                       LAKES
                                                                                                                   COUNTY BOUNDARY
                                                                              0          5        10               0-99 PERSONS BELOW POVERTY LEVEL
                                                                                                                   100-219 PERSONS BELOW POVERTY LEVEL
                                                                                       IN MILES                    220-359 PERSONS BELOW POVERTY LEVEL
                                                                                                                   360-600 PERSONS BELOW POVERTY LEVEL




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                           Page 11
                                                     TRANSPORTATION




                                       ELDORADOPOVERTY
                                                     CONSULTANTS, INC.
                                                                                                              FIGURE 6




Page 12
                                                                        Western El Dorado County Zero Vehicle Households by Census Tract




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                                                            49
                                                                                                                                                   EASTERN
                                                                                                                                                  EL DORADO
                                                                                                                                                   COUNTY




                                                                                                                                                                50




                                                                       50




                                                                                         49
                                                                                                                                      LEGEND
                                                                                                                               HIGHWAYS
                                                                                                                               LAKES
                                                                                              SCALE
                                                                                                                               COUNTY BOUNDARY
                                                                                     0          5        10                    0-15 ZERO VEHICLE HOUSEHOLDS
                                                                                                                               16-30 ZERO VEHICLE HOUSEHOLDS
                                                                                              IN MILES                         31-75 ZERO VEHICLE HOUSEHOLDS
                                                                                                                               76-200 ZERO VEHICLE HOUSEHOLDS




   Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                        TRANSPORTATION




                                       ELDORADOZEROVEHICLE
                                                        CONSULTANTS, INC.
                                       TABLE 3: Major Activity Centers in Western El Dorado County
                                          Activity Centers for Seniors, Persons with Disabilities, and Low Income Individuals and Families

                                       Activity Center (by Area)                          Program Purpose                                              Activity Center (by Area)                         Program Purpose

                                       Cameron Park                                                                                                     Placerville continued
                                          Alcoholics Anonymous                            Recovering Alcoholics                                            El Dorado County Family Support Division
                                          Choices for Children                            Child Care Referrals                                             El Dorado County Food Bank
                                          Boys and Girls Club                                                                                              El Dorado County Food Programs




Western El Dorado County
                                       Camino                                                                                                              El Dorado County Literacy Services




2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                          Progress House                                  Women's Addiction Recovery (residential)                         El Dorado County Mental Health Center         Mental Health Services
                                       Coloma                                                                                                              El Dorado County Public Health Dept.
                                          Progress House                                  Men's Addiction Recovery (residential)                           El Dorado County Senior and Family Services
                                       Diamond Springs                                                                                                     El Dorado County Veteran’s Service Office     Veteran's Services
                                          Lion's Hall                                     Senior Nutrition Site                                            El Dorado Women’s Center                      Abuse Victims Services
                                       El Dorado                                                                                                           Elder Options                                 Professional Care Management
                                          Alcoholics Anonymous                            Recovering Alcoholics                                            GATES Recovery                                Addiction Recovery
                                          Telos Youth Outposts                            Youth Behavioral Services                                        Golden Sierra Job Training Agency             Employment Services
                                       El Dorado Hills                                                                                                     Health Depot                                  Life Skills, Preventative Health, Job Skills; Non-Eng. Speakers
                                          Community Services District                     Senior Nutrition Site and Teen Center                            Job One Employment Resource Center            Employment Services
                                          El Dorado Hills Senior Center                   Senior Services                                                  Legal Center for the Elderly                  Senior Legal Services
                                          Sierra Immediate Care Medical Clinic            Medical Services                                                 Marshall Hospital                             Hospital
                                       Garden Valley                                                                                                       Mental Health Day Treatment Center            Treatment for Mental Illness
                                          Alcoholics Anonymous                            Recovering Alcoholics                                            Motherlode Rehabilitation Enterprises, Inc.   Services for the Disabled Adults
                                          Progress House                                  Women & Children's Residence for Recovering Addicts              New Morning Youth Shelter                     Youth Shelter
                                       Georgetown                                                                                                          Placerville Senior Center                     Senior Services, Nutrition Site
                                          Alcoholics Anonymous                            Recovering Alcoholics                                            Progress House                                Transitional Services for Recovering Addicts
                                          Buckner Hall                                    Community Events                                                 S.H.A.R.E.                                    Food Closet
                                          Divide Seniors                                  Senior Services                                                  Senior Day Care Services                      Senior Services
                                          Divide Wellness Center                          Health Clinic                                                    Senior Peer Counseling                        Senior Services Outreach
                                       Greenwood                                                                                                           Snowline Hospice                              End of Life Services
                                          Community Center                                Senior Nutrition Site                                            Social Security Administration                Food Stamps, MediCal, CalWorks
                                       Mt. Aukum                                                                                                           TriVisual Services                            Services for Visually Impaired
                                          Three Forks Grange Hall                         Community Events                                                 Wee-Care (Family Connections El Dorado)       Adults, Children 0-5
                                       Placerville                                                                                                         WIC Office                                    Women, Infant & Children's Services
                                          Alta California Regional Center                 Services for Developmentally Disabled                         Pollock Pines
                                          Big Brother Big Sister                          Mentoring Program                                                Boys and Girls Club
                                          Boys and Girls Club                                                                                              Senior Center                                 Senior Services, Nutrition Site
                                          CA Dept of Rehabilitation                                                                                     Shingle Springs
                                          Central Sierra Regional Occupational Program    Job Information and Training                                     Alcoholics Anonymous                          Recovering Alcoholics
                                          Children’s Center/Network                       Headstart                                                        Senior Center                                 Senior Services
                                          Choices Transitional Services                   Independent Living Services for Developmentally Disabled Adults Shingle Springs Community Center               Senior Nutrition Site
                                          Community Crisis Services                                                                                        Shingle Springs Tribal Health                 Drop-In Health Clinic
                                          El Dorado Council on Alcoholism (EDCA)          Alcohol & Drug Addiction Recovery                             Somerset
                                          El Dorado County Alcohol & Drug                 Alcohol & Drug Addiction Recovery                                Pioneer Park Community Center                 Senior Nutrition Site
                                          El Dorado County Community Services
                                          El Dorado County Dept. of Social Services

                                       Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                           Page 13
                                       This page left intentionally blank.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                            Western El Dorado County
Page 14                                                                      2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Western El Dorado County        LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                             Page 15
                                       This page left intentionally blank.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                           Western El Dorado County
Page 16                                                                      2008 Short Range Transit Plan
         TABLE 4: El Dorado Countywide 2007 Labor Force Data
                                                                                          %
         Area / Subarea                   Labor Force       Employed       Unemployed Unemployed

         El Dorado County                    93,600           89,300           4,300            4.8%

         Cameron Park CDP                    9,300             9,000            300             3.3%
         Diamond Springs CDP                 2,400             2,300            100             4.3%
         El Dorado Hills CDP                 10,800           10,500            300             2.9%
         Georgetown CDP                       500               500              0              0.0%
         Placerville City                    5,400             5,000            400             8.0%
         Pollock Pines CDP                   2,500             2,400            100             4.2%
         Shingle Springs CDP                 1,700             1,600            100             6.3%

         Subarea Total                       32,600           31,300           1,300            4.2%

         Source: CA Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division, September 2007




Table 5 identifies major employers located in Western El Dorado County, according to the El Dorado
County Demographic Profile (CSUC, Center for Economic Development, 2005). As shown,
approximately 46 percent of the employers are within the “services” trade; this is consistent with the
County’s findings for overall employers which showed that the “services” sector accounted for the
majority of employers throughout the County, at 30.5 percent. It is also worth noting that many of these
largest employers are not currently on an EDCTA local route.

MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK
Table 6 presents the means of transportation to work for employed Western El Dorado County residents.
Based on the information collected from the 2000 U.S. Census, the majority of employed residents (77.7
percent) drove alone, while 12.8 percent carpooled. In addition, 1.5 percent walked, 1.3 percent used
public transportation, 0.8 percent used “other” means (including motorcycles), and none bicycled. An
estimated 6.0 percent of employed persons worked at home, which is significantly higher than the
statewide average of 3.2 percent.

According to data results from the 2006 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census
Bureau, the transportation patterns of residents countywide has changed slightly (data specifically for the
western portion of the County is not available). The 2000 Census indicated that Countywide, only 0.3
percent of residents biked to work; the 2006 data reveals that this has increased to 1.2 percent.
Additionally, the number of employed residents that walk to work has increased from 2.2 percent to 2.6
percent; however use of public transportation overall has decreased from 1.8 percent to 1.2 percent, and
carpooling now captures 12.1 percent of employed residents, a decrease of 1.2 percent from the 2000
Census. A larger proportion of residents are working from home, 6.6 percent throughout the County
compared to 5.8 percent in 2000, which may attribute to the decreases and variations within the last six
years.



Western El Dorado County                                                            LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                                  Page 17
TABLE 5: Major Employers in Western El Dorado County

                                                                                                           Total No.
                    Employer                      Type of Business                Location                Employees


DST Output / DST Innovis                               Services               El Dorado Hills           1,000 to 4,999
Blue Shield                                            Services               El Dorado Hills           1,000 to 4,999
Amdocs Ltd.                                           Publishing              El Dorado Hills           1,000 to 4,999
Marshall Hospital                                      Services                  Placerville            1,000 to 4,999
                                                                        El Dorado Hills, Cameron
Raley's / Bel Air                                      Services                                           500 to 999
                                                                            Park, Placerville
End Wave Corp.                                        Services               Diamond Springs              250 to 499
El Dorado County Sheriff                             Government                  Placerville              250 to 499
More Recycling                                        Services                   Placerville              250 to 499
McClone Construction Co.                             Construction            Shingle Springs              250 to 499
Fortune 800                                           Services                El Dorado Hills             250 to 499
Roebbelen Contracting and Land                       Construction             El Dorado Hills             250 to 499
El Dorado County Social Services                     Government                  Placerville              100 to 249
El Dorado County Financial Aid                       Government                  Placerville              100 to 249
El Dorado Irrigation District                        Public Utility              Placerville              100 to 249


Source: El Dorado County Demographic Profie, CSUC Center for Economic Development, 2005.




                TABLE 6: Estimated Travel-To-Work Mode Split
                                                                2000 U.S. Census
                                                          Western El Dorado County
                    Travel Mode                          No. of People      % of Total


                    Drove alone                              42,653               77.7%
                    Carpooled                                 7,034               12.8%
                    Public transportation                      688                1.3%
                    Bicycle                                     0                 0.0%
                    Walked                                     806                1.5%
                    Other means (incl. motorcycle)             432                0.8%
                    Worked at home                           3,282                6.0%
                    Total                                    54,895              100.0%

                    Source: U.S. Census Bureau




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                          Western El Dorado County
Page 18                                                                                    2008 Short Range Transit Plan
COMMUTE PATTERNS
The 2000 U.S. Census results indicate that slightly more than one-half (55 percent) of the employed
County residents commute to jobs within the County, while approximately 27 percent travel to nearby
Sacramento County, as shown in Table 7. It is safe to assume that the majority of Western El Dorado
County residents are commuting to Sacramento, Placer, Yolo, Amador, and other California Counties,
while residents of the eastern portion of the County (such as South Lake Tahoe), are commuting to
bordering Nevada counties, such as Douglas County and Carson City.

Sacramento County residents represent 60.6 percent of commuters traveling into El Dorado County,
followed by Douglas County, Nevada (10.8 percent) and Placer County (10.6 percent). Again, it is likely
that those traveling from counties in Nevada are working in South Lake Tahoe or nearby surrounding
areas within the eastern portion of the County.

TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Existing Roadway Level of Service

An important consideration in the provision of transit service is the degree and characteristics of traffic
congestion in the community. Traffic congestion can benefit transit service (so long as transit services are
not delayed by the congestion) in that service opportunities may be created that allow passengers quicker
and more convenient trip-making. On the other hand, congestion can delay transit vehicles operating in
mixed traffic, thereby reducing the attractiveness of service, as well as increasing operating costs.

To date, the Western El Dorado County area has been fortunate in avoiding widespread traffic congestion
problems. There are, however, specific traffic problem areas, as presented below. Each roadway segment
listed operates at Level of Service (LOS) D or worse (El Dorado County Regional Transportation Plan,
2005). The LOS scale ranges from “A” (free-flowing) to “F” (stop-and-go congestion). Roadways with
existing LOS of D or below consist of the following:

    *Cameron Park Drive: from Coach Lane to Green Valley Road

    El Dorado Hills Boulevard: from US 50 to Lassen Lane and Andrews Drive to Francisco Drive

    Green Valley Road: from the County line to Salmon Falls Road and from Seknon Falls Road to
    Cameron Drive

    *Missouri Flat Road: from Headington Road to SR 49

    Mother Lode Drive: from S. Shingle Road to Pleasant Valley Road

    *Pleasant Valley Road: from SR 49(N) to Bucks Bar Road

    Ponderosa Road: from US 50 to Meder Road

    South Shingle Road: from Durock Road to US 50

    *SR 49: from Pleasant Valley Road to Missouri Flat Road and SR 193 to County line




Western El Dorado County                                                     LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                           Page 19
Page 20
                                       TABLE 7: Commute Patterns To and From El Dorado County
                                       From El Dorado County to…..                                         To El Dorado County from…..
                                       El Dorado County                     39,709            55.1%        Sacramento County           4,963     60.6%




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                       Sacramento County                    19,353            26.8%        Douglas County , NV          881      10.8%
                                       Douglas County , NV                   4,130             5.7%        Placer County                872      10.6%
                                       Placer County                         3,663             5.1%        Amador County                257       3.1%
                                       Yolo County                            831              1.2%        Yolo County                  190       2.3%
                                       Carson City, NV                        805              1.1%        Nevada County                155       1.9%
                                       Amador County                          369              0.5%        San Joaquin County            85       1.0%
                                       San Mateo County                       321              0.4%        Other California Counties    532       6.5%
                                       San Francisco County                   288              0.4%        Other States                 258       3.1%
                                       Santa Clara County                     271              0.4%
                                       Alameda County                         262              0.4%        Total                         8,193   100.0%
                                       San Joaquin County                     256              0.4%
                                       Other California Counties             1,300             1.8%
                                       Other States                           535              0.7%

                                       Total                                  72,093          100%


                                       Source: 2000 U.S. Census, compiled by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.




   Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
    *US 50: eastbound from Bass Lake Road to Ponderosa Road, from the County line to El Dorado
    Hills Boulevard, and Sly Park Road to Echo Lake

According to the Regional Transportation Plan as well as the County General Plan, several roadways
within the County are permitted to operate at a LOS F, which are denoted above by an asterisk (*), due to
the fact that the roadways are improved to their maximum width given right-of-way and physical
limitations. Additional roadway segments are also found on Cambridge Road. The 2004 General Plan
included a policy that the County may not add additional segments of roadways to the list without voter
approval.

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
Placerville Projects

As the City of Placerville has limited undeveloped commercially zoned property within its boundaries,
most commercial projects are infill and relatively small in scale. Relatively large commercial projects
consist of the following:

    A new headquarters complex for El Dorado Irrigation District on Mosquito Road consisting of 15,800
    square feet of office and an 11,900 square foot shop.

    Grading has been completed for a 19,400 square foot office building at Main Street and Pacific Street,
    which will be completed in 2008/09.

    A 10,120 square foot mixed residential-commercial project has been planned but not permitted along
    Spring Street.

    A 5,000 square foot commercial retail project at Broadway and Schnell School Road is on hold while
    undergoing revisions.

    Two office buildings of between 1,900 and 3,200 square feet are in construction along Mallard Lane.

    Construction recently began on a 109 room Holiday Inn Express on Smith Flat Road just north of the
    Point View Road off ramp on US 50. The project includes a 1,500-foot road which will connect the
    freeway off ramp at Point View Drive to Smith Flat Road, Jacquier Road and the Apple Valley
    region.

In addition, a 45,000 square foot surgery unit planned for a site along Marshall Way.

There are also a number of approved and pending residential developments:

    An Eskaton Senior Community is planned for a site on Blairs Lane west of Wiltse Road. The Eskaton
    project has started construction of some of the 113 single-family units. The plan also includes 64
    condominiums, 60 assisted living apartments, and 40 special care units.

    A subdivision is currently under development west of Mallard Lane near the water treatment facility.
    The project near the water treatment facility called The Ridge at Orchard Hill includes an unspecified
    number of single family units for seniors, with 156 houses to be built in all. Four age-non-restrictive
    houses are currently under construction for this project.

There are no other significant residential projects at this time.

Western El Dorado County                                                    LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                          Page 21
El Dorado County Projects

Unincorporated El Dorado County has experienced extensive growth in the past decade, particularly in
the western portion. Numerous large bedroom communities and subdivisions have been built in El
Dorado Hills and Cameron Park. Commercial growth has also increased substantially, particularly in El
Dorado Hills, including large retail developments near the intersection of Latrobe Road and White Rock
Road and several business parks south of US 50 along Latrobe Road. While it is anticipated that
residential building will slow somewhat due to the slack housing market, requests for entitlements are
currently continuing at a steady pace to ensure that plans are recorded. At least one residential developer
has requested to have land rezoned as commercial. Commercial growth is expected to continue at a rapid
pace. Currently vacant commercial spaces are being occupied. For example, the Bureau of Land
Management is moving some operations to El Dorado Hills, and several “big-box” stores are anticipated
to move to El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park. In addition, many commercial plans are in the design
review stage and growth is anticipated in several key locations, including the following:

    Along Green Valley Road, near Francisco Drive and near Cameron Park Drive.

    Barnett Business Park off Durock Road in Shingle Springs is continuing to grow.

    There is a lot of commercial activity near the airport in Cameron Park. In particular, a large project
    called the Cameron Park Bowl is planned on Cameron Park Drive across from the airport, with a
    bowling alley, arcade, and indoor miniature golf course.

    A million square-foot mixed commercial project is planned along Latrobe Road several miles south
    of US 50 (near the current third Business Park entrance).

    A commercial project is planned for Serrano Village near Bass Lake Road.

    Town Center West will continue to develop, and Town Center East will build out with two additional
    major retailers.

    North of US 50 along Missouri Flat Road, significant commercial development is planned behind K-
    Mart at Headington Road extension.

    South of US 50 along Missouri Flat Extension, conceptual plans have been prepared for a commercial
    project including a Walgreen’s and Goodyear tire store.

    The Red Hawk Casino, expected to employ 7,000 individuals, will be constructed in fall of 2008 in
    Shingle Springs.

El Dorado County planners noted that most of the conceptual plans they receive come to fruition.

Transportation and Roadway Related Projects

With the expected growth and development in the region and the current congestion along US 50, there
has been a strong emphasis on planning for improvements to the highway corridor. The Sacramento
Regional Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Plan (MTIP), El Dorado Regional Transportation




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                  Western El Dorado County
Page 22                                                                            2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Plan (RTP), and the Sacramento Regional Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) all identify projects
along the US 50 Corridor in order to address current and forecast traffic levels. A summary of these
planned projects are listed below:

    High occupancy vehicle lanes are proposed in each direction in the median of US 50 from the El
    Dorado Hills Boulevard interchange to the South Shingle Road/Ponderosa Road overcrossing. Phase
    III of the project will extend high occupancy lanes to Greenstone Road. The project will include
    bridge modifications, lighting improvements, new overlay, and CHP enforcement areas.

    A new interchange is planned on US 50 at Silva Valley Parkway and US 50 in El Dorado Hills,
    including new auxiliary lanes in both the eastbound and westbound directions.

    The US 50/Bass Lake Road interchange is planned to be improved by widening off- and on-ramps,
    installing new traffic signals, adding auxiliary lanes, and lengthening bridges.

    A new interchange on US 50 is planned for the new Red Hawk Casino project of the Shingle Springs
    Rancheria and will be located between Shingle Springs Drive and the Greenstone Road interchange.
    The purpose of the project is to provide open access to and from the Shingle Springs Rancheria and
    US 50.

    Major reconstruction is underway for the Missouri Flat Road interchange in Placerville. The project
    will modify the existing interchange, widen Weber Creek Bridge, and improve bicycle and pedestrian
    access across US 50 at the interchange. The project will relieve existing congestion, add capacity, and
    provide safety improvements to the interchange and surrounding areas.

    Alterations to the existing Ray Lawyer Drive overpass in Placerville are also planned, converting this
    to a full interchange and adding auxiliary lanes in the westbound and eastbound directions. The
    interchange at Forni Road and Placerville Drive will also be reconstructed and overcrossing
    improvements will be made on Placerville Drive as part of the project.

    The “Placerville US 50 Operational Improvement Project” is an extensive project along the US 50
    Corridor between Placerville Drive on the west and Clay Street on the east. Once completed in 2009,
    the project will provide a direct connection between Placerville Drive and Main Street that avoids the
    current route on US 50 and will also add turn and travel lanes, provide environmental remediation,
    improve traffic signals, and provide decorative bridge railings, historic lighting, fencing, and
    additional signage.

EXISTING PLANNING PROCESSES
A key step in any physical planning process – particularly one that considers a longer planning horizon –
is the careful consideration of other ongoing planning processes in the area. This section presents a review
of these recent and concurrent planning studies, and considers how each impacts the potential for future
transit services.

El Dorado County General Plan

El Dorado County adopted its current General Plan in July 2004, and began implementing the plan in
April 2006. The General Plan includes an introduction and nine elements. Two of the elements, Land Use,
and Transportation and Circulation, are the central elements for the entire planning process. The



Western El Dorado County                                                    LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                          Page 23
following is a list of goals found in the General Plan’s Transportation and Circulation Element that are
relevant to transportation as addressed in the SRTP:

    “To plan for and provide a unified, coordinated, and cost-efficient countywide road and highway
    system that ensures the safe, orderly, and efficient movement of people and goods.

    To coordinate planning and implementation of roadway improvements with new development to
    maintain adequate levels of service on County roads.

    To promote a safe and efficient transit system that provides service to all residents, including senior
    citizens, youths, the disabled, and those without access to automobiles that also helps to reduce
    congestion, and improves the environment.

    To reduce travel demand on the County’s roadway system and maximize the operating efficiency of
    transportation facilities, thereby reducing the quantity of motor vehicle emissions and the amount of
    investment required in new or expanded facilities.

    To provide a safe, continuous, and easily accessible non-motorized transportation system that
    facilitates the use of the viable alternative transportation modes.

    To provide safe, continuous, and accessible sidewalks and pedestrian facilities as a viable
    transportation mode.”

The Land Use Element must be correlated with the Transportation and Circulation Element, according to
state law. Therefore, many policies and goals included in the Land Use Element are designed to address
land use patterns which are directly related to circulation and transportation issues. One transit-related
goal from this element is:

         “Protection and conservation of existing communities and rural centers; creation of
         new sustainable communities; curtailment of urban/suburban sprawl; location and
         intensity of future development consistent with the availability of adequate
         infrastructure; and mixed and balanced uses that promote use of alternate
         transportation systems.”

The County has also set forth a policy related to this goal in which a joint County/City task force is
established to develop complementary land use designation, zoning, transportation, andfunding plans to
protect existing and to encourage new developments. By doing so, the area will be developed in an
organized manner and will have the opportunity to better address regional transportation and transit needs
accordingly.

Elk Grove – Rancho Cordova – El Dorado Connector

The Elk Grove-Rancho Cordova-El Dorado Connector is a future project in the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan for 2025. This multi-modal transportation corridor will connect the three areas and
will link residential areas and employment centers. In addition to roadway facilities, bicycle, transit and
pedestrian facilities are included as travel options through the corridor. The Elk Grove-Rancho Cordova-
El Dorado Connector Concept Plan was developed as a result of the projected growth of the Sacramento
and El Dorado areas. Specifically, Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) has forecast that




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                  Western El Dorado County
Page 24                                                                            2008 Short Range Transit Plan
the number of households in south/east Sacramento County and Western El Dorado County will increase
by approximately 140 percent by 2032 (based on 2005 data), while employment is expected to nearly
double. The following bulleted items provide details on the project’s intent and strategies:

    The connector is designed to address the loss of access to job centers due to increased growth (both in
    population and employment) and concerns regarding the effect of development on open space and
    habitat preservation.

    The project will improve access, mobility, and develop new connections between the three areas;
    preserve open space and wildlife habitat; enhance economic vitality; and bring jurisdictions together
    to maximize funding.

    Five alternatives were developed, all of which address roadway facilities, transit facilities and
    services, non-motorized travel facilities, and open space/land use priorities. Transit features are
    intended to provide more travel choices and to reduce the necessity to travel by automobile alone.
    Fixed-route bus service on major arterials and key corridors (trunk line service), commuter/express
    service and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service were examined.

Sacramento Regional Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)

The Sacramento Region MTP for 2025 outlines 20 years of improvements to El Dorado County’s
regional transportation system, including the following:

    Operational improvements on US 50 from West Placerville Drive to Bedford. Completion Year 2009

    Widen shoulders on SR 49 near Ore Court Road to China Hill Road. Completion Year 2010

    On US 50 through Camino, conduct preliminary planning, engineering and environmental analysis
    for the conversion of the expressway to a freeway and future construction of a new interchange.
    Completion Year 2015

    Realign Main Street in Placerville to provide two one-way roadways from Washington Street to
    Broadway at the US 50 westbound off-ramp. Completion Year 2017

    Extend the two-lane road in the City of Placerville on Point View Drive from Broadway to Smith Flat
    Road. Completion Year 2008

    Miscellaneous road widening projects on Forni Road, Washington Street, Cambridge Road, Cameron
    Park Drive, Durock Road, El Dorado Hills Boulevard, Green Valley Road, Latrobe Road, Missouri
    Flat Road, Mother Lode Drive, Pleasant Valley Road, Silva Valley Parkway, South Shingle Road,
    and White Rock Road. Completion Years 2007–2025

    New two-lane road on Country Club Drive from Bass Lake Road to Merrychase Drive parallel to US
    50 and from Bass Lake Road to Silva Valley Parkway parallel to US 50. Completion Year 2022

    Replace existing bridge on Green Valley Road at Tennessee Creek. Completion Year 2010

    New two-lane divided roadway from Missouri Flat Road to Pleasant Valley Road/SR 49 at Fowler
    Lane. Completion Year 2010



Western El Dorado County                                                    LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                          Page 25
    New two-lane road on Palmer Drive between Wild Chaparral Drive and Palmer Drive. Completion
    Year 2010

    Intersection improvements at Buck’s Bar Road and Pleasant Valley Road. Completion Year 2019

    New four-lane undivided road from the County line to Arrowhead Drive on Saratoga Way.
    Completion Year 2010

    At US 50 and El Dorado Hills Boulevard, new auxiliary lanes halfway to the east Silva Valley Road
    interchange and auxiliary lane westbound to the County line. Completion Year 2010

    Miscellaneous interchange improvements on Bass Lake Road, Cameron Park Drive, El Dorado Road,
    Missouri Flat Road, and Ponderosa Road. Completion Year 2008–2010

    Purchase an additional 12 commuter buses (4 buses every three years) and replace after ten years.
    Completion Year 2025

    Construction of Central Park-and-Ride facility in Diamond Springs. Completion Year 2008

    Purchase an additional 40 buses (10 buses every four years) to provide commuter services.
    Acquisition Year 2025

Sacramento Regional Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP)

The MTIP includes funded transportation improvement projects which are scheduled for implementation
in the short-term. The MTIP must be consistent with the goals and long-term objectives of the MTP. The
SACOG 2007/09 MTIP currently calls for the following roadway improvements relating to transit in
Western El Dorado County:

    Silva Valley/US 50 interchange – construct new interchange with overpass and ramps at US 50 and
    Silva Valley Road; add auxiliary lanes halfway to the next interchange westbound to El Dorado Hills
    and auxiliary lane eastbound connecting existing truck climbing lane. Completion Year 2016

    US 50 Operational Improvements – (1) construct EB turn and auxiliary lane at East Placerville Drive
    to Bedford Avenue; (2) construct two-lane connection from existing eastern terminus of Placerville
    Drive to the existing western terminus of Main Street; (3) improve traffic signals at US 50/Canal
    Street, SR 49/Bedford Avenue and US 50/Spring Street intersections; (4) widen local streets
    intersections for vehicle storage; (5) lengthen existing US 50 left turn pockets for vehicle storage; (6)
    close the US 50 eastbound off ramp at Main Street, and (7) construct various context sensitive
    solutions and TEA features. Completion Year 2009

    US 50 Western Placerville interchanges – reconstruct existing Forni Road/Placerville Drive
    interchange; convert Ray Lawyer Drive overpass to full interchange; add westbound and eastbound
    auxiliary lanes between Ray Lawyer Drive and Placerville Drive and minor access road changes.
    Completion Year 2012

    El Dorado Hills Boulevard/Francisco Drive Intersection Modifications – realignment/reconfiguration
    and signalization of the El Dorado Hills Boulevard/Francisco Drive/Brittany Way intersection.
    Completion Year 2008



LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                  Western El Dorado County
Page 26                                                                            2008 Short Range Transit Plan
    Pleasant Valley/Missouri Flat Connector – Construct a new two-lane divided roadway from Missouri
    Flat, north of China Garden, to Pleasant Valley Road/SR 49 at Fowler Lane. Completion Year 2009

    Saratoga Way Extension – Construct a new two-lane road from end of Saratoga Way to the County
    line. Completion Year 2010

    Add HOV lanes from El Dorado Hills Boulevard to South Shingle Springs/Ponderosa Road.
    Completion Year 2008

    Reconstruct Missouri Flat interchange at US 50. Completion Year 2008

    Realign and widen White Rock Road from the Sacramento/El Dorado County line to Latrobe Road
    from two to four lanes. Completion Year 2007

El Dorado County Regional Transportation Plan

The El Dorado County 2005-2025 Regional Transportation Plan was developed to address regional
transportation issues and needs for a 20-year period and includes policy direction, actions, and funding
recommendations. The following are proposed projects designed to implement the policies set forth in the
document with respect to the regional roadway network in Western El Dorado County:

    HOV lane extensions on US 50 from the El Dorado Hills Boulevard undercrossing to the South
    Shingle Road/Ponderosa Road overcrossing.

    US 50/Missouri Flat interchange improvements, including modifying the interchange and widening
    Weber Creek Bridge.

    Western Placerville interchange improvements on US 50 from Placerville/Forni Road interchange to
    the Ray Lawyer Drive overcrossing.

    Placerville operational improvements on US 50 from West Placerville Drive to Bedford.

    Construction of a two-way left turn lane, installation of a stop sign, and associated bicycle and
    pedestrian facilities on SR 49 in Coloma from the South Fork American River Bridge to Marshall
    Road.

    Construction of a left-turn pocket on SR 193 about 10km at Sliger Mine Road.

    Widen and add shoulders on SR 49 between Ore Court and China Hill Road.

    Improvements on Placerville Drive.

    Realign the Clay Street and Cedar Ravine intersection to a 4-way configuration, and reconstruct the
    bridge and Ivy House parking lot.

    Improvements on the westbound US 50 on/off ramps and signalization at Cambridge Road, Merry
    Chase Drive and US 50.

    Operations safety analysis and improvement on Cameron Park Drive/Palmer Drive and Green Valley
    Road.


Western El Dorado County                                                  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                        Page 27
    Construction of left turn lanes at the Cameron Park Drive and Mira Loma Drive intersection.

    Construction of left turn lanes and signalize the intersection of Missouri Flat Road and El Dorado
    Road.

    Widen the two-way left turn at Mother Lode Drive from South Shingle to the French Road
    intersection.

    Road rehabilitation in the City of Placerville and El Dorado County.

    Enhance aesthetic architectural elements along US 50 in Placerville.

    Remove the abandoned eastbound off-ramp at Main Street and reestablish riparian vegetation on US
    50 near Hangtown Creek.

    Provide transit service to light rail (LRT) in Folsom.

    Expand service on Pollock Pines, El Dorado/Diamond Springs, Folsom Lake College, and Cameron
    Park routes.

    Expand commuter service to meet increasing demand.

    Convert Placerville/Hangtown Shuttle to fixed-route and provide complementary ADA service.

    Expand DAR service.

    Contract for provision of weekly Georgetown/Cool/Pilot Hill service to Auburn.

    Revise the commuter schedule.

    Expansion of Placerville – light rail in Folsom and reconfiguration of the Cameron Park route.

    Continuation of direct Sacramento Commuter bus service.

    Establishment of an El Dorado Hills local route.

    Continuation of DAR services.

    Expansion of local Hangtown Shuttle, Pollock Pines and Folsom Lake College (FLC) routes.

    Pursue transit extension to El Dorado County.

    Increased bicycle rack capacity on transit buses.

    Downtown Placerville Plaza Transit stop.

    Monitoring of ridership on the planned Folsom LRT extension.

    Coordination with schools and transit service.

    Coordination with neighboring transit agencies.

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                Western El Dorado County
Page 28                                                                          2008 Short Range Transit Plan
El Dorado County Long Range Transit Plan

The El Dorado County Long Range Transit Plan (LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2003) presents
specific service and financial recommendations, both short (FY 2003/04 through 2007/08) and long range
(extending to 2025), for the EDCTA and the El Dorado County Transportation Commission (EDCTC). A
selection of transit related recommendations are as follows:

Long Range Transit Plan

    Continuation of expanded DAR services.

    Expansion of Placerville-Folsom light rail (LRT) service to a minimum of hourly services between
    LRT and Placerville Station.

    Continuation of direct Sacramento Commuter bus service subsequent to the expansion of LRT
    service.

    Expansion of local Placerville, Pollock Pines, and Folsom Lake College routes.

    Reconfiguration of the Cameron Park route to coordinate with Folsom LRT service along the US 50
    Corridor.

    Establishment of an El Dorado Hills local route.

    Expand the EDCTA fleet to accommodate growth in services.

    Replace vehicles as necessary.

    Conversion to low-sulfur diesel fuel as the primary fuel source for the EDCTA fleet.

    Automatic Vehicle Location, Automatic Passenger Counting, and advance passenger fare
    technologies will be implemented.

    Park-and-Ride facilities will be expanded, focusing on the El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park areas.

    The existing EDCTA Administrative/Maintenance Facility will continue to be the operational base
    for the system and improvements will be made as needed to accommodate expansion in staff and fleet
    size.

    The primary passenger facility for the local routes will be the Missouri Flat Transit Center. Placerville
    Station will also serve as an important facility for the Pollock Pines, Hangtown Shuttle, and extended
    Folsom/LRT routes, as well as for intercity transit service.

    EDCTA will continue to upgrade passenger amenities at bus stops.

Short Range Transit Plan

    Convert Hangtown Shuttle to a fixed-route and provide complementary ADA service.

    Expand service on Pollock Pines, El Dorado/Diamond Springs, Folsom Lake College and Cameron
    Park routes.

Western El Dorado County                                                     LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                           Page 29
    Provide transit service to planned LRT in Folsom in 2005.

    Expand DAR services.

    Contract with Placer CTSA for provision of weekly Georgetown/Cool/Pilot Hill service to Auburn.

    Expand commuter service to meet increasing demand.

    Revise the commuter schedule.

    Fleet replacement and expansion, including one wheelchair-accessible cutaway van for fixed-route
    service, one wheelchair accessible cutaway van for the DAR, and one medium bus for the Folsom
    light rail service.

    Implement improvements to EDCTA administration/maintenance center.

    Improve office computer network.

    Develop and improve Missouri Flat Transfer Center.

    Continue to improve bus stop amenities.

    Review construction plans and schedule priorities for pedestrian and bicycle improvements.

    Expand park-and-ride facilities.

    Implement the Demand Response Dispatching program.

    Consider Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) technology.

US 50 Corridor Short Term Transit Plan

As a result of increased growth in El Dorado County, heavy commute traffic exists on US 50 between
Sacramento and El Dorado County. In order to address these issues, a US 50 Corridor Short Term Transit
Plan was developed in 2006, which provides short term improvements to be implemented within the next
three to five years. Recommendations from the report are as follows:

    Provide two consistent routes into the Downtown area and drop any current stops that have fewer
    than five daily boardings and alightings, or that are less than two blocks from one another.

    Provide an additional run in the morning and afternoon, and provide additional “express” runs.

    Revise routing at Park-and-Ride lots.

    Provide EDCTA commuter bus connection to light rail, using one bus operating between Missouri
    Flat Road and the Iron Point Light Rail Station.

    Discontinue the Rancho Cordova commuter bus service.

    Promote a vanpool service and/or have the EDCTA assist others in a vanpool program that serves
    Rancho Cordova.

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                               Western El Dorado County
Page 30                                                                         2008 Short Range Transit Plan
These recommendations were implemented in Fiscal Year (FY) 2006/07.

Folsom El Dorado Corridor Transit Strategy

The strategy is a compilation of “work papers” which present potential high capacity transit alignments
that will serve the communities along US 50 between Folsom and El Dorado Hills. The preferred
alignment that pertains to El Dorado County enters the County from the Southern Pacific right of way and
either continues along White Rock Road to the Silva Valley/US 50 interchange or into the El Dorado
Hills Business Park. The strategy sites several “key actions for right of way preservation and project
development” that relate to the SRTP update:

    Establish or modify current bus routes that mimic the possible future east-west transit line.

    Participate with Folsom in the examination of transit options in the area south of US 50.

    As the Elk Grove/Rancho Cordova/El Dorado Connector study progresses, consider how the east-
    west transit line planning should be integrated.

DAR Zone Assessment Study

The DAR Zone Assessment Study for El Dorado County (LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., October
2001) provided the following recommendations:

    Provide Zone 2 service to El Dorado Hills, with potential improvement to Zone 1 service for both El
    Dorado Hills and Cameron Park

    Eliminate service to areas requiring more than $60 subsidy per passenger-trip

    Establish zone fares and increase fare levels

    Modify on-time standard from 20 to 30 minutes

    Increase the maximum in-vehicle travel time standard, and strive to increase passengers per vehicle-
    trip

    Establish a formal service cancellation policy

    Establish a standard and monitor trip turndowns

    Implement automated dispatch scheduling software

Many of the recommendations have been implemented.

Triennial Performance Audit

In July 2006, the Triennial Performance Audit of the El Dorado County Transit Authority report was
completed. This report detailed seven recommendations:

    Present summarized data on complaints and compliments to the TAC and Authority Board in order to
    form trends in customer service and identify potential deficiencies.


Western El Dorado County                                                     LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                           Page 31
    Adopt an on-time performance standard for the fixed-route and DAR services.

    Report the number of road calls by service type, such as local fixed-route, commuter bus, and demand
    response.

    Consider developing a fare revenue deviation policy that would include establishing a range of
    acceptable variance between projected and actual revenues.

    Consider the TDA provision allowing flexibility for the exclusion of new services from the farebox
    recovery ratio.

    Evaluate the fare structure system-wide on a regular basis to enable the agency to more effectively
    plan for and manage existing and future transit services.

    Coordinate with EDCTC on the development of transit performance targets for its commuter, local
    fixed-route, and DAR services.

AIR QUALITY
For air quality planning purposes, the west slope of El Dorado County is located in the Mountain Air
Basin. The primary responsibility for air pollution control within the study area lies with the El Dorado
County Air Pollution Control District.

El Dorado County is designated as a serious non-attainment area for ozone under both federal and state
standards, as well as non-attainment for PM10 under state standards. It has been fairly well established that
this poor condition is a result of the topography and meteorology of the area. Mountains and hills affect
regional airflows which in turn concentrate high pollutants and hinder dispersion, inversion layers occur
which trap pollutants close to the ground, and general climatic conditions in the summer provide
conditions that promote the formation of ozone. Studies have determined that the ozone levels in the
Mountain Counties Air Basin (MCAB) can be attributed to the pollutants generated in the Bay Area,
Sacramento Valley, and San Joaquin Valley, which are transported via strong upwind air flows from the
Central Valley to the west, particularly in the summer months. Further, the MCAB and the California Air
Resources Board (ARB) have determined that these transported pollutants are primarily responsible for
the non-attainment of the state and federal ozone standards within the area.

FINDINGS OF EL DORADO COUNTY’S UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS
The Transportation Development Act (TDA) specifies that recipients of TDA funding conduct an annual
assessment of transit needs within their jurisdiction before TDA funds are allotted to streets and roads.
This assessment consists of two major steps: the identification of “unmet transit needs,” and a
determination of whether these needs are “reasonable to meet.” The EDCTC has defined unmet transit
needs as:

         “Those public transportation services necessary, but unprovided for individuals to maintain a
         minimum standard of living. This may include trips necessary for medical and dental services,
         shopping, employment, personal business, education, social services, and recreation. Unmet
         transit needs are also those needs required to comply with the requirements of the Americans
         with Disabilities Act.”




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                 Western El Dorado County
Page 32                                                                           2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Furthermore, unmet transit needs are found to be reasonable to meet if all of the following conditions
prevail:

         “Services, which if implemented or funded could meet a 10 percent farebox recovery as specified
         in the California Code of Regulations. A minimum of twelve months is a reasonable time for a
         demonstration project to be evaluated.”

         “Unmet Needs may also consist of basic capital improvements that make transit more amenable
         to riders.”

         “Service which, if implemented, would not cause the responsible operator to incur expenditures
         in excess of the maximum amount of Local Transportation Funds, State Transit Assistance Funds,
         Federal Transit Administration Funds, and passenger fares which may be available to the
         claimant.”

Review of the findings regarding unmet transit needs can provide insight into transit improvements
requested by the public. For both 2005 and 2007, 100 percent of the TDA funds were being used by
transit and therefore no unmet needs were required to be determined. In 2006, the County did not find any
unmet transit needs that were reasonable to meet. The following is a brief summary of the unmet needs
issues for the past three years.

Although no official unmet needs hearing was required in 2005, EDCTC held a public hearing to obtain
public comments and input about transit issues in El Dorado County. The comments received at the
meeting are noted below:

    The DAR service should be able to do multiple day scheduling for those who have consistent
    schedules and use the service regularly.

    DAR round-trip transportation needs should be prioritized.

    Additional regular DAR service to the Camino Heights/Pollock Pines area should be implemented.

    A request for re-establishment of the former service to the Carson Ridge Apartments.

    A request for DAR service to be available to disabled persons outside of regular transit service hours,
    as many persons who are dependent upon the service may have evening or weekend jobs.

For 2006, EDCTC prepared an unmet transit needs report, with staff recommending a finding that “there
are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet.” At the public meeting, of the 34 comments
received, approximately 5 were considered unmet transit needs that were not reasonable to meet. A
summary of these comments follows:

    Request to extend evening service hours in Cameron Park to 6:00 PM. or 7:00 PM

    Request for fixed-route service in El Dorado Hills with shuttle connections to LRT in Folsom

    Request for a fixed-route within El Dorado Hills

    Request for connecting an El Dorado Hills service between Cameron Park, Folsom Lake College – El
    Dorado Center, El Dorado County Fairgrounds, and downtown Placerville


Western El Dorado County                                                    LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                          Page 33
    Lack of DAR service to the Swansboro neighborhood and, due to recent development in the area,
    recommendation of a re-analysis of the DAR zones for potential service to the neighborhood

In 2007, as there were no surplus TDA funds available for local streets and roads in El Dorado County; it
was not required that the “unmet needs process” be conducted. Regardless, a public hearing was held in
order to obtain comments regarding needed transit services, pursuant to TDA Section 99238.5, which are
summarized below:

    A representative of the Vision Coalition of El Dorado Hills discussed the need for youth
    transportation to and from the Teen Center. It was noted that their grant funds available to develop
    teen programs in the area that could be utilized. It was requested that a sub-committee be formed to
    discuss and implement the shuttle service.

    A comment on the need for transportation for youth in Pollock Pines to and from school, work,
    activities, and appointments.

    A request for later bus service, preferably after 5:30 PM

    A comment on the need for increased availability and expansion of DAR services for seniors, youth,
    and persons with special needs.

    Inadequate access to existing transit stops – current roadway designs do not provide safe pedestrian
    and bicycle routes and crossings.

    A request to consider a scheduled bus route serving high-density housing near Cameron Park Drive
    and Green Valley Road and possibly to connect to the Folsom Lake College El Dorado Center.
    Service to Kaiser Permanente in Folsom, connections to light rail, and Old Town Folsom were also
    noted.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                Western El Dorado County
Page 34                                                                          2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                                                                    Chapter 3
                                                                    Transportation Services
BACKGROUND
Transportation has always played an important role in Western El Dorado County. From its founding as a
mining and agricultural area, Western El Dorado County has been dependent upon transportation of both
goods and residents to markets and opportunities outside of the County. Modern public transit services
have been available in Western El Dorado County only since the late 1970s. Service was provided to the
elderly and disabled population of greater Placerville until 1980, when it was opened to the general
public. In recent years, a well-established public transit system has developed, serving both the Placerville
urban area and regionally. The creation of the El Dorado County Transit Authority (EDCTA) in 1993 has
proven to be an important milestone in the provision of an effective and well-accepted public transit
system.

Western El Dorado County transit services are provided through a joint powers agreement between the
County of El Dorado and City of Placerville. The EDCTA is governed by a five-member board of
directors, three members appointed by the County Board of Supervisors and two members appointed by
the Placerville City Council. Additionally, a transit advisory committee, made up of ten members
representing both private and public interests, is responsible for reviewing the operation of the transit
system, monitoring levels of service based upon budgets, and providing advice to the transit director. The
transit director supervises a staff of approximately 54 regular employees, including the operations
manager, office manager, fiscal administration manager, office and financial staff, transportation
supervisors, a transit services assistant, transit dispatchers, a transit trainer, mechanics, as well as 31 full-
time equivalent (FTE) transit drivers. EDCTA’s internal organization structure is presented in Figure 8.

EDCTA operates a wide range of services including local deviated fixed-routes, demand response,
intercity commuter service, and contracted social service transportation. The following describes each of
the existing services in detail, while Figures 9 and 10 present the local routes and commuter routes
graphically.

EXISTING EL DORADO TRANSIT SERVICES
Local Routes

Placerville Routes – EDCTA operates an East route and a West route along the US 50 Corridor in the
City of Placerville. These routes, which replaced the previous deviated route Hangtown Shuttle service,
provide fixed-route service mainly along the US 50 Corridor between the Missouri Flat Transfer Center
and Point View Drive on the eastern side of Placerville. The East and West routes are essentially
directional trips of the same loop, although the routes do serve different stops between Spring Street and
Point View Drive. Service is provided Monday through Friday on one hour headways from 7:00 AM to
6:00 PM, and Saturday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Some important stops along the Placerville routes are:
Human Services, El Dorado County Fairgrounds Park-and-Ride, M.O.R.E. workshop, Marshall Hospital,
Rite Aid, and Home Depot. Request stops are available along Green Valley Road, Cold Springs Road,
Clay Street, and Cedar Ravine Road. The general public one-way fare for all local routes is $1.10, and
senior and disabled passengers are charged $0.55 per one-way trip. Monthly passes are $33 for general
public, $21 for senior and disabled passengers, and $25 for students. Persons age 80 and older ride free.
As discussed below, complementary paratransit service is provided in Placerville, and the Placerville
routes do not deviate.

Western El Dorado County                                                        LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                              Page 35
Page 36
                                       FIGURE 8: El Dorado County Transit Authority Approved Organization Chart
                                       Fiscal Year 2007/08


                                                                                    EDCTA Board of Directors




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                                                                       Transit Director




                                                                                                                          Fiscal Administration
                                                            Operations Manager                    Office Manager
                                                                                                                                Manager


                                                                                                                       Information     Accounting
                                                                                                 Office Assistant II   Technology      Technician I
                                                                                                                         Analyst           (2)



                                                            Senior                                                         Office
                                       Transportation                          Transit            Transit Services                       Transit
                                                           Equipment                                                   Assistant II
                                       Supervisors (2)                     Dispatchers (5)           Assistant                           Trainer
                                                           Mechanic                                                    Bilingual (1)

                                       Transit Drivers
                                          (31 FTE)



                                                 Equipment          Maintenance
                                               Mechanic I/II (3)   Technician (2)




   Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Western El Dorado County        LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                             Page 37
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.     Western El Dorado County
Page 38                                2008 Short Range Transit Plan
The Placerville Express is a new route established in FY 2006/07 which serves the same general vicinity
as the East and West routes but with only 5 stops in each direction. This route, which was established to
reduce travel times across Placerville, begins at the Placerville Station, and ends at the Missouri Flat
Transfer Center. The service is available Monday through Friday from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM. The local
fare rates above apply to the Placerville Express route.

Pollock Pines Route – The Pollock Pines route provides deviated fixed-route transit service along the US
50 Corridor between the Placerville Station Transfer Center in eastern Placerville, the Camino area, and
the Safeway Plaza on Pony Express Trail in Pollock Pines. Service is provided Monday through Saturday
between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM. On the first westbound run of the day, the Pollock Pines bus makes 1 trip
to the Missouri Flat Transfer Center at 7:40 AM. Route deviations are provided for Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) passengers up to three-quarters of one mile from the designated route. ADA route
deviation requests can be scheduled the previous service day, though same day requests are
accommodated when possible. There is a $0.25 additional fare charge per trip per person for off-route
deviations. The general public one-way fare is $1.10, and senior and disabled passengers are charged
$0.55 per one-way trip. Monthly passes are $33 for general public, $21 for senior and disabled
passengers, and $25 for students.

Diamond Springs/Folsom Lake College Routes – The Diamond Springs route begins at the Missouri
Flat Transfer Center and follows a clockwise loop around Diamond Springs on Pleasant Valley Road, El
Dorado Road and Mother Lode Drive back to the Missouri Flat Transfer Center. The bus then alternates
with the Cameron Park bus to operate the 25 minute out and back run to Folsom Lake College. The
Diamond Springs route itself takes about 30 minutes to operate as does the Folsom Lake College
extension. Service for both routes is provided hourly from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Monday through
Saturday. In addition to the College, the Diamond Springs/Folsom Lake College route serves the
Diamond Springs Mobile Home Park, El Dorado Transit Offices, and the Child Development Center.
Route deviations are provided for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) passengers up to three-quarters
of a mile from the designated route. There is a $0.25 additional fare charge per trip per person for off-
route deviations. ADA route deviation requests can be scheduled the previous service day, though same
day requests are accommodated when possible. Non-ADA request stops are also available for a few areas
off the route. The general public one-way fare is $1.10, and senior and disabled passengers are charged
$0.55 per one-way trip. Monthly passes are $33 for general public, $21 for senior and disabled
passengers, and $25 for students.

Cameron Park/Folsom Lake College Route – The Cameron Park route begins at the Missouri Flat
Transfer center in Placerville, follows Mother Lode Drive and Durock Road to Shingle Springs and then
makes a counterclockwise loop along Cameron Park Drive, Cambridge Road, and Country Club in
Cameron Park and returns via Mother Lode Drive to the Missouri Flat Transfer Center. In the past, one
bus operated the combined Diamond Springs/Cameron Park/Folsom Lake College route. Now a second
bus is used to operate the expanded Cameron Park Route and both the Cameron Park bus and Diamond
Springs bus alternately operate the Folsom Lake College route on hourly headways. Request stops on the
Cameron Park route are available at Ponderosa High School, Cameron Park Library, and the Cambridge
Park-and-Ride lot. This route also serves Marshall Medical and the Ponderosa Park-and-Ride. The
Cameron Park route operates 7 runs (with approximately two-hour headways) from 6:25 AM to 6:00 PM
Monday through Saturday. The 6:25 AM run and the 2:00 PM run are express runs with limited stops and
therefore do not offer three-quarter mile deviations for ADA passengers. The remaining 5 runs offer route
deviations like the other local routes. The fare structure on the Cameron Park route is identical to the
other local routes.




Western El Dorado County                                                   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                         Page 39
ADA Complementary Paratransit for Placerville East and West Routes – This service is compliant
with the transportation section of the ADA and is only available to persons who are unable to use the
Placerville East and West fixed-routes. EDCTA complimentary paratransit provides curb-to-curb transit
service during the same hours and days as the Placerville East and West fixed-routes within three-quarters
of a mile from the fixed-routes. Passengers may reserve a ride up to 14 days in an advance. This service
has extremely low ridership, only 3 to 5 passengers per month. The ADA Complementary Paratransit fare
is $1.50 per one-way passenger trip. As the other local routes allow for deviations up to three-quarters of
a mile from the fixed-route, ADA paratransit service is not required to complement those routes.

Rural Routes

El Dorado Transit currently provides two rural routes that connect small outlying communities to the
medical and commercial services in Placerville one day a week.

Grizzly Flat Route – The Grizzly Flat route provides two round-trips on Thursdays between Prospectors
Plaza on Missouri Flat Road and Grizzly Flat Road southeast of Placerville. Eastbound runs depart at 7:50
AM and 3:00 PM, and westbound runs depart at 8:26 AM and 3:36 PM. The afternoon eastbound run
from Grizzly Flat to Placerville is by request only. Route deviations are provided for ADA passengers up
to three-quarters of one mile from the designated route. ADA route deviation requests can be scheduled
the previous service day, though same day requests are accommodated when possible. The general public
one-way fare is $2, and senior and disabled passengers are charged $1 per one-way trip. Monthly passes
are $33 for general public, $21 for senior and disabled passengers, and $25 for students. There is a $0.25
additional fare charge per trip per person for off-route deviations.

South County Route – This rural route began service in FY 2005/06 as a demonstration project to
connect the communities of Mt. Aukum, Somerset, and Fairplay to Placerville. One morning and one
afternoon round trip are operated between the Missouri Flat Transfer Center, Bistro/Fairplay in Somerset,
and Prospector’s Plaza in Placerville on Tuesdays. Bus stops south of the Pioneer Park Community
Center are by request only on the afternoon run.

Commuter Services

The Sacramento Commuter Service provides 12 different routes and time schedules to destinations in
downtown Sacramento. These routes were recently adjusted as recommended in the US 50 Corridor
Transit Plan. Morning departures from El Dorado County locations are scheduled from 5:20 AM to 8:00
AM, and afternoon eastbound departures from Sacramento occur from 2:27 PM to 6:15 PM. A reverse
commuting service is also offered for persons commuting from Sacramento to El Dorado County
destinations (using bus runs that would otherwise be operated as “deadhead” trips to position buses and
drivers). Reverse commutes are provided on Routes 6, 7, and 10, Monday through Friday. Morning
reverse commute runs depart Sacramento at 7:00 AM and 8:57 AM. Afternoon reverse commute runs
depart El Dorado County at 2:00 PM, 4:15 PM, and 5:35 PM. The Commuter routes serve the El Dorado
Hills Park-and-Ride, Cambridge Road Park-and-Ride, Rodeo Road Park-and-Ride, Ponderosa Road Park-
and-Ride, El Dorado County Fairgrounds Park-and-Ride, and Placerville Station on Mosquito Road.

The Commuter service fare structure is as follows:

    One-way cash fare, $4
    20-ride ticket book, $80
    Commuter monthly pass, $144
    Combo Commuter and Sacramento Regional Transit Monthly Pass, $170.50


LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                Western El Dorado County
Page 40                                                                          2008 Short Range Transit Plan
El Dorado Transit commuters may purchase a $0.25 transfer for use on Sacramento Regional Transit (Sac
RT) bus and light rail. On return trips a Sac RT transfer will be valid for $1 off the commuter fare.

The Sacramento Commuter service uses a total of 10 vehicles. All buses are based out of the EDCTA
facility in Diamond Springs. In the morning, 9 vehicles operate 11 commuter routes and 2 reverse
commuter routes. All but 4 buses, which are parked in Sacramento during the day, travel back to the
EDCTA operations facility after the morning run. Drivers of the 4 buses left in Sacramento are shuttled
back to El Dorado County in the returning buses. In the afternoon, 6 buses travel west to Sacramento to
operate 12 Commuter routes, and 3 reverse commuter routes in conjunction with the 4 buses which stayed
behind in Sacramento during the day.

Iron Point Connector (IPC)

Implemented in July 2006, the IPC route provides direct service from El Dorado County to Folsom with
connections to Sac RT light rail on weekdays. This route runs every two hours beginning at 5:40 AM and
ending at 7:27 PM from the Missouri Flat Transfer Center to the Iron Point Light Rail Station in Folsom.
Other stops include the El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride, Cambridge Road Park-and-Ride, Ponderosa Road
Park-and-Ride, El Dorado County Fairgrounds Park-and-Ride, Kaiser Permanente, and the Folsom Lake
College Folsom Campus.

The IPC fare structure is as follows:

    One-way cash fare, $2.50
    Fare for FLC Students with Student Access Card and CSUS Students with ID, $1.50
    20-ride ticket book, $50
    Monthly pass, $90
    Combo IPC and Sac RT Monthly Pass, $122.50

IPC monthly passes are also valid on El Dorado Transit’s local bus routes. El Dorado Transit riders can
purchase a $0.25 transfer for Sac RT light rail, but the full fare must be paid for transfers to the Folsom
Stage Lines.

Dial-A-Ride

The Dial-A-Ride (DAR) service is a demand response service designed for elderly and disabled
passengers, with limited access available for the general public. The service is available on a first-come,
first-serve basis Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:30 AM and 5:00 PM, and between 8:00
AM and 5:00 PM on Saturdays and Sundays. The DAR service area consists of 12 geographic zones
throughout the western slope of El Dorado County. As shown in Figure 11, pickups are available in parts
of El Dorado Hills, Pollock Pines, Garden Valley, and SR 49 at Crystal Boulevard. Ride requests may be
made on weekdays between 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM up to three days in advance. Preference in scheduling
is provided to elderly and disabled passengers, with other ride requests accommodated on a space
available basis starting at 3:00 PM on the day prior to the ride request. In addition, service to the general
public is not provided to the most outlying zones.

The fare structure for the DAR service is based primarily on trip length, the cost to EDCTA of providing
the trip, and passenger type. This fare structure is designed to ensure that all passengers pay roughly
equivalent proportions of total cost. Fares vary by zone. Fares are $1.50 for seniors and disabled and $3
for general public in the zones along the US 50 Corridor between El Dorado Hills and Placerville, $3 and



Western El Dorado County                                                      LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                            Page 41
                                         FIGURE 11

                             El Dorado County Transit Authority
                                Dial-A-Ride Zone System Map




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                           Western El Dorado County
Page 42                                                     2008 Short Range Transit Plan
$5, respectively for the surrounding tier of zones, and $5 for senior/disabled rides in the most outlying
zones. In addition, seniors or disabled persons pay $0.50 for every zone boundary crossed, while the
general public pays $1.

SAC-MED Non-Emergency Medical Appointment Transportation

The SAC-MED service was implemented on October 1, 2002, as a 12-month demonstration project.
SAC-MED is a public shared-ride non-emergency medical appointment transportation service for seniors,
disabled, and general public passengers. Ride requests are scheduled on a first-come, first-served basis,
and confirmed with a call back by 4:00 PM the day before the scheduled ride. Reservations for SAC-
MED must be made four days in advance and can be scheduled up to 14 days in advance. The service
operates Tuesdays and Thursdays, with the Sacramento County destination arrival times dependent upon
the number of appointments scheduled for that day. Passenger medical appointment times must be
between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM. The fare is a flat rate of $5 per boarding. SAC-MED pick up and drop
off locations in El Dorado County are:

    Placerville Station
    Missouri Fat Transfer Center
    Ponderosa Road Park-and-Ride
    Bel Air Shopping Center Bus Shelter
    El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride

Contracted Social Services

EDCTA also provides a range of contracted activity program services:

    The Senior Day Care Center is located in Placerville, and operated by the El Dorado County
    Community Services Department. This program provides close supervision and assistance with a full
    day of scheduled therapeutic activities for homebound individuals with mental and physical
    impairments. The Center provides services to approximately 44 seniors each week. Subscription DAR
    service to and from the Center is provided by El Dorado Transit. Up to 6 EDCTA cutaway vans at a
    time are used to serve the Senior Day Care program.

    Alta California Regional Center assists persons with developmental disabilities, including infants at
    risk and their families by providing and securing those services and supports necessary to maximize
    opportunities and choices. Alta contracts with public transit, private taxi companies and the school
    district to provide transportation for their consumers in the Placerville area. Alta is the entity who
    organizes contract transportation with EDCTA for the operation of the M.O.R.E routes (discussed
    below) and DAR trips to employment opportunities in Rancho Cordova for a group of Alta
    consumers.

    Mother Lode Rehabilitation Enterprises, Inc. (M.O.R.E.) provides a variety of services including
    vocational training, job placement, independent living training, semi-independent residential program,
    community integration, life skills, and social/vocational counseling and behavior management as
    needed. In addition to its contract with EDCTA for transportation, M.O.R.E. operates a 15-passenger
    van providing daily transportation to 12 clients residing at Pathways, a group home in Placerville.
    Transportation is provided between M.O.R.E. and Pathways, and to and from shopping, jobs or
    recreational activities. M.O.R.E service requires up to seven EDCTA cutaway vans at peak times.




Western El Dorado County                                                     LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                           Page 43
Special Event Services

In addition, EDCTA operates several special event shuttle services over the course of the year:

    The Apple Hill service is a special high-profile service providing shuttle transportation for visitors to
    the Apple Hill ranches every weekend during the month of October. It is intended to address traffic
    and parking issues. Shuttle buses depart the Schnell School parking lot from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM
    every 15 to 30 minutes. This fare-free service is financed through grants from the El Dorado County
    Air Quality Management District and the Apple Hill Growers Association.

    El Dorado Transit is contracted with the El Dorado County Fair Association to provide the El
    Dorado County Fair Shuttle. The shuttle transports fair patrons between remote parking sites and
    the fair during all hours of the event. El Dorado Transit has received grant funding from the El
    Dorado County Air Quality Management District for this service.

    The Main Street Shuttle primarily transports prospective jurors between free parking at the
    Placerville Station and the Courthouse in downtown on Tuesdays from 8:00 AM to 1:00 PM. This
    fare free service was originally designed as a parking shuttle for the downtown Placerville area to
    offset the loss of parking resulting from the US Highway 50 construction project. Limited funding for
    the shuttle has been provided by Caltrans. El Dorado Transit and City of Placerville staff are in the
    process of negotiating additional funding.

    The seasonal Holly Jolly Trolley shuttles shoppers, children, and choirs free of charge between the
    Placerville Station parking lot and businesses along Main Street in downtown Placerville from
    approximately December 2nd to 23rd. The trolley stops at the Mountain Democrat, Off Broadway,
    Placerville Station, 681 Main Street, Sweetie Pies, former city hall, the post office, and the Gold
    Country Inn every 15 to 20 minutes from 11:00 AM to 6:00 PM.

EXISTING SERVICE CALENDAR
EDCTA does not operate on the following holidays:

    New Year’s Day
    Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
    President’s Day
    Memorial Day
    Independence Day
    Labor Day
    Veteran’s Day
    Thanksgiving Day and the day after Thanksgiving
    Christmas Day

Limited services (which include Saturday service hours on local routes, Sacramento Commuter Route 6
with service to all park-and-ride lots and ADA Complementary Paratransit Service and limited DAR
service), are provided on the following days:

    Columbus Day
    Christmas Eve
    Any regular service day designated to be a limited service day because of adverse weather conditions



LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                  Western El Dorado County
Page 44                                                                            2008 Short Range Transit Plan
EXISTING FARE MEDIA
Table 8 below presents the fare structure for each specific service offered. As presented, general public
fares are $1.10 or $2 for local deviated fixed-routes, between $3 and $5 for DAR, and between $2.50 and
$4 on the commuter routes. Elderly and disabled fares are generally one-half of these amounts on the
local deviated fixed-routes. Students K-12 receive discounted monthly passes on the local deviated fixed-
route service.

EDCTA and Sac RT entered into a formal transfer agreement in 1999 that allowed EDCTA to operate
within Sacramento County and offer the discounted Combo Commuter and Sac RT Monthly Pass.
Amendments to the transfer agreement in 2005 dictate that Sac RT will accept transfers from EDCTA
routes and EDCTA will accept transfers from Sac RT routes. Transfer fees apply in both cases. The
agreement also includes fare agreements for Los Rios Community College Students with an Access Card
or CSUS Students with an ID card (group passes). These students receive a discount on EDCTA
Commuter routes and ride free on EDCTA local routes. At the end of each month, EDCTA tallies the
number of transfers and group passes accepted from Sac RT and the number of transfers issued by
EDCTA for Sac RT. The difference between accepted and issued transfers is payable to the transit agency
who issued the greater number of transfers. The amount due is based on the payee’s average annual per
passenger fare for the fiscal year minus the amount of revenue collected by EDCTA for issued Sac RT
transfers. Employees of both Sac RT and EDCTA are allowed to ride free on the partner transit system
with a valid employee badge. As there is an inequality in the number of “free employee trips” provided by
each agency, it is likely that a new transfer agreement with Sac RT will be negotiated in 2008 that
addresses this situation.


  TABLE 8: El Dorado County Transit Authority Fare Structure
                                                                    General Public                    Elderly/Disabled                   Student (K-12)
  Route                                                           One-Way    Monthly                One-Way      Monthly              One-Way     Monthly

  Local Routes
     Pollock Pines, Placerville Routes                               $1.10          $33.00             $0.55          $21.00             $1.10            $25.00
        Diamond Springs, Cameron Park,
        and Folsom Lake College
     Grizzly Flat and South County Routes                            $2.00          $33.00             $1.00          $21.00             $2.00            $25.00

  Dial-A-Ride 1
     Zone A-C                                                        $3.00            N/A              $1.50            N/A              $3.00              N/A
     Zone D-F                                                        $5.00            N/A              $3.00            N/A              $5.00              N/A
     Zone G-L                                                         N/A             N/A              $5.00            N/A               N/A               N/A

  Commuter Routes
                                                                                                                                                2
     Sacramento Commuter Routes                                      $4.00         $144.00             $4.00         $144.00            $4.00            $144.00
     Combination Pass (RT and EDT)                                    N/A          $170.50              N/A          $170.50             N/A             $170.50
     Iron Point
         Iron Point Connector                                        $2.50          $90.00             $2.50          $90.00            $2.50(3)          $90.00
         Combination Pass (IPC and RT)                                N/A          $122.50              N/A          $122.50              N/A            $122.50

  SAC-MED Route                                                      $5.00            N/A              $5.00            N/A              $5.00              N/A

 Note 1: Additional cost of $0.50 per zone boundary crossed for Elderly/Disabled fares and additional cost of $1.00 per zone boundary crossed for General and Student
 fares.
 Note 2: Students with a "Student Access Card" from the Los Rios Community College District or students of CSUS receive a discounted fare of $3.00; all other students
 are charged the full $4.00 one-way fare.
 Note 3: FLC and CSUS students with ID receive a discounted fare of $1.50.

 Source: El Dorado County Transit Authority.




Western El Dorado County                                                                                               LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                                                                     Page 45
Table 9 presents a tally of Sac RT fare media issued/accepted by EDCTA for FY 2006/07. As shown,
EDCTA drivers issued a total of 1,889 transfers to Sac RT transit services and EDCTA received no
transfers from Sac RT riders. A total of 7,879 Student ID’s were accepted on all EDCTA routes. It should
be noted that Student ID boardings accounted for 16.72 percent of total boardings on the IPC, 7.75
percent of total boardings on the Diamond Springs/Cameron Park/Folsom Lake College and 6.74 percent
of total boardings on the Placerville Express route in FY 2006/07.

EDCTA is also considering entering into a universal fare card program with Sac RT that would involve
the purchase smart card readers for some or all of EDCTA vehicles. This program is discussed in greater
detail in the Capital Alternatives section.

DISCONTINUED TRANSIT SERVICES
Discontinued EDCTA services consist of the following:

    Between July 2004 and July 1, 2006, EDCTA provided service to major employment centers in
    Rancho Cordova. Commuter Routes 8 and 9 were operated in the morning and afternoon commute
    period using a 25-passenger bus. Most recently, the routes left at 5:00 AM and 6:35 AM from El
    Dorado County Fairgrounds Park-and-Ride, arriving at Mayhew Road and Franchise Tax Board
    Court at 5:57 AM and 7:30 AM. The afternoon routes left Mayhew Road and Franchise Tax Board
    Court at 3:40 PM and 5:20 PM and arrived at the El Dorado County Fairgrounds at 4:40 PM and 6:35
    PM. This service was discontinued due to poor ridership and route performance. Average daily
    ridership on these routes ranged from two to four passengers per day for each run. In FY 2004/05, the
    farebox return ratio for the Rancho Cordova Commuter routes was 5.8 percent compared to 66.5
    percent on the Sacramento Commuter routes. Productivity (one-way passenger trips per vehicle-hour
    of service) was 2.8 on the Rancho Cordova routes, whereas the Sacramento Commuter routes
    produced 16.7 passenger trips per vehicle-hour of service.

    The Georgetown Divide Route was a 12-month demonstration project that began February 27, 2001,
    serving the communities of Georgetown, Greenwood, Cool, Pilot Hill, and Garden Valley. The
    service initially provided 3 round-trips on Tuesdays and Thursdays but changed to request only
    service on July 17, 2001 due to low ridership. This service was discontinued February 27, 2002.

    The El Dorado Hills Shuttle Bus was implemented as a result of the annual unmet transit needs
    process during FY 1996/97. This 12-month demonstration project operated during FY 1997/98,
    serving the El Dorado Hills community. Service was provided Monday through Friday between 5:25
    A.M. and 6:20 P.M. Initially 5 loops per day were provided but later reduced to 2 loops per day due
    to poor ridership. Major stops included El Dorado Hills Business Park, Town Center, Raley’s Center,
    Oak Ridge High School, The Village, El Dorado Hills Community Service District, Sam’s Town
    Park-and-Ride, Prospectors Plaza, and El Dorado County Fairgrounds Park-and-Ride. Annual
    ridership totaled 823, with a 2.3 percent farebox. As the population in El Dorado Hills has increased
    significantly over the last ten years transit service to the area will be analyzed in the alternatives
    section.

EXISTING RIDERSHIP AND SERVICE LEVELS
Total annual systemwide ridership for FY 2006/07 on all EDCTA services was 360,569 one-way
passenger-trips, an increase of approximately 11.2 percent in comparison to the previous year. In FY
2006/07, the local routes accounted for roughly 38.9 percent of the systemwide ridership and commuter
routes accounted for roughly 36.9 percent.


LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                Western El Dorado County
Page 46                                                                          2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                       TABLE 9: Sacramento Regional Transit Fare Media Tally for Fiscal Year 2006 - 2007
                                          Number of Passenger-Trips




Western El Dorado County
                                                                                                                                                                                         Local Routes




2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                                                                                                                                     Pollock   Diamond Grizzly        Cameron South Folsom
                                                                          Sacto Commuter                  Iron Point Connector(1)            Reverse         P-Ville Pines     Springs  Flat Express    Park  County Lake
                                       Month                       ST ID EMP TFRS ISSD                ST ID EMP TFRS ISSD              ST ID EMP TFRS ISSD   ST ID   ST ID      ST ID   ST ID   ST ID   ST ID   ST ID   ST ID
                                       July-06                       18      86        0      34           0     5      0       44      0    0    0    7       2       3          4      0       --      0       0       0
                                       August-06                     12      125       0      24          21     3      0      102      3    0    0    3       64      9         6       0       2       15      0       35
                                       September-06                  24      104       0      15          57     1      0      119      6    0    0    4      229      41        52      0      133      57      0      242
                                       October-06                    39      71        0      24          67     0      0      159      12   0    0    11     282      81        74      52     186      0       0      274
                                       November-06                   32      83        0      21          71     0      0      100      8    0    0    7      210      11        71      73     147      0       0      248
                                       December-06                   17      98        0      16          44     0      0      121      2    1    0    0      195      17        53      48      95      0       0      105
                                       January-07                     2      91        0      29          117    2      0      122      0    0    0    0      274      20        36      32      68      0       0      140
                                       February-07                    1      55        0      23          187    1      0      103      1    0    0    0      224      22        96      35      76      0       0      248
                                       March-07                       4      90        0      46          171    4      0      135      0    0    0    0      229      7         153     64      96      0       0      337
                                       April-07                       7      107       0      28          180    0      0      144      0    0    0    0      203      26        112     77      94      0       0      309
                                       May-07                        21      107       0      28          135    0      0      214      0    0    0    6      162      24        72      37      63      0       0      158
                                       June-07                        1      105       0      33           4     0      0      167      0    0    0    0       4       0         0       0       0       0       0       1
                                       TOTAL                        178 1,122          0     321      1,054      16     0      1,530    32   1    0    38    2,078    261        729    418     960      72      0      2,097

                                       Total Transfers Issued:                                                              1,889
                                       Total Student ID Accepted:                                                           7,879
                                       Total Transfers Received:                                                             0

                                       Key: ST ID = Student ID s used, EMP = RT employee badges used, TFRS = RT transfers accepted, ISSD = RT transfers issued by EDCTA drivers.
                                       Note 1: Includes 1 transfer issued for the Rancho Cordova route.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                           Page 47
Historical Ridership and Service Levels

Systemwide ridership over FYs 1996/97 through 2006/07, both in total and by major service category, is
presented in Table 10. Figure 12 graphically presents 10-year growth in ridership growth in a stacked bar
chart format. As presented, total systemwide ridership over this period has increased 35.6 percent, or 3.1
percent annual average growth. The El Dorado Transit target for annual ridership increase is 3.0 percent.
Historical change in ridership for each type of service is also illustrated in Figure 13.

Figure 14 presents a pie chart of the proportion of total EDCTA ridership by service category over the
most recent year. As shown, the local and commuter ridership levels are relatively equal, and together
comprise just over three quarters of total systemwide ridership. The local routes provide the greatest
ridership, at 38.9 percent of systemwide ridership, followed by the commuter routes (36.9 percent of
systemwide ridership) and the contracted social services (10.7 percent). The DAR service accounts for 9.2
percent of systemwide ridership, Special Event services (Holly Jolly Trolley and Apple Hill Shuttle)
account for 3.8 percent and other non-regular, “ancillary” services (rural routes and SAC-MED) only
accounted for 0.4 percent of systemwide ridership.

Examination of ridership data by service (Table 10) reveals that the increase in Commuter ridership
(53,212 annual one-way passenger-trips) accounts for more than half of the systemwide ridership increase
over the ten-year period. Commuter ridership has grown rather steadily since 1996 with exceptions in FY
2003/04 and FY 2006/07. The IPC providing direct service to the Sac RT light rail station in Folsom,
began operation in July 2006 and may have reduced ridership on other commuter runs slightly. Although
these service changes appear to have had a negative effect on ridership, it typically takes three years for a
new service to become established and see full potential ridership. Another factor that may have
contributed to a decline in commuter ridership is the addition of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on
US 50, which have eased travel delays for auto drivers and passengers. As stated in Chapter 2,
improvement projects to extend the HOV lanes are included in the Sacramento Regional MTP.

Ridership on the DAR service increased significantly (140 percent total growth), or 9.1 percent average
annual growth) over the most recent ten years, while ridership growth on the Contracted Social Services
has remained relatively flat, as shown in Table 10. The newer SAC-MED service has seen a 160.1 percent
increase in ridership from 291 one-way passenger-trips to 757 one-way passenger-trips over the last five
years. Ridership on the combined Special Event Services (Holly Jolly Trolley, Apple Hill Shuttle and
Main Street Shuttle) has been rather erratic as the Apple Hill Shuttle was not operated in FYs 2002/03,
2003/04 and 2004/05. Even with the addition of the Main Street Shuttle in FY 2006/07 Special Event
Services ridership decreased by 27.7 percent over the last ten years. Although it is considered a chartered
service and therefore not included in Table 10, it is relevant to note that El Dorado County Fair Shuttle
provided 14,417 one-way passenger-trips for the June 2007 Fair.

Table 11 provides ridership data regarding the individual local and rural routes. A review of this data
indicates the following:

    The Placerville Routes (formerly named Placerville East, Placerville West and Placerville Express)
    have seen a 42.3 percent increase in ridership over the last ten years or an average annual growth of
    3.6 percent. The 29.5 percent jump in ridership from FY 2005/06 to FY 2006/07 can be attributed to
    the restructuring of the Placerville routes from the Hangtown Shuttle to the East, West and Express
    routes.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                 Western El Dorado County
Page 48                                                                           2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Western El Dorado County
                                       TABLE 10: El Dorado County Transit Authority Historical Ridership




2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                                                                                                                        Contracted Social
                                                                     Local Routes         Rural Routes(1)          Dial-A-Ride      Commuter Routes          Services           Sac - Med       Special Event (2)            Total
                                                                   Annual                 Annual                Annual              Annual             Annual One-         Annual One-        Annual One-           Annual One-
                                                                  One-Way                One-Way               One-Way             One-Way                Way                 Way                Way                   Way
                                                                  Passenger-   %        Passenger-    %        Passenge      %     Passenger-   %      Passenger-     %    Passenger-     %   Passenger-     %      Passenger-       %
                                               Fiscal Year          Trips    Change        Trips   Change       r-Trips   Change     Trips    Change      Trips     Change    Trips    Change    Trips    Change       Trips       Change


                                                1996-97             114,345      --          0         --       13,846       --     79,869    12.8%      38,801      --        0        --      19,082       --      265,943      6.3%
                                                1997-98             106,040    -7.3%       1,452       --       11,963    -13.6%    86,715    8.6%       38,820    0.0%        0        --      10,337    -45.8%     255,327      -4.0%
                                                1998-99             100,916    -4.8%       885      -39.0%      13,117     9.6%     93,381    7.7%       38,631    -0.5%       0        --       9,319     -9.8%     256,249      0.4%
                                                1999-00            112,823     11.8%       638      -27.9%      16,490    25.7%     113,422   21.5%      39,693    2.7%        0        --      12,331    32.3%      295,397      15.3%
                                                2000-01            104,461     -7.4%       610       -4.4%      16,930     2.7%     123,808   9.2%       40,160    1.2%        0        --       8,977    -27.2%     294,946      -0.2%
                                                2001-02             99,553     -4.7%       723       18.5%      16,295     -3.8%    129,294   4.4%       43,650    8.7%        0        --       1,140    -87.3%     290,655      -1.5%
                                                2002-03            100,514     1.0%        601      -16.9%      17,616     8.1%     132,504   2.5%       45,549    4.4%       291       --        765     -32.9%     297,840      2.5%
                                                2003-04            107,789     7.2%        451      -25.0%      21,955    24.6%     130,903   -1.2%      50,118    10.0%      593     103.8%      942     23.1%      312,751      5.0%
                                                2004-05            105,286     -2.3%       397      -12.0%      27,227    24.0%     133,529   2.0%       48,510    -3.2%      509     -14.2%     1,313    39.4%      316,771      1.3%
                                                2005-06            109,807     4.3%        669       68.5%      32,302    18.6%     134,367   0.6%       37,598   -22.5%      677     33.0%      8,933    580.4%     324,353      2.4%
                                                2006-07            140,333     27.8%       743       11.1%      33,230     2.9%     133,081   -1.0%      38,628    2.7%       757     11.8%     13,797    54.4%      360,569      11.2%
                                       Total Growth                 25,988     22.7%       -709     -48.8%      19,384    140.0%    53,212    66.6%       -173     -0.4%      466     160.1%     -5,285   -27.7%      94,626      35.6%
                                       Average Annual Growth        2,599       2.1%        -79      -7.2%       1,938     9.1%      5,321     5.2%        -17      0.0%      117      27.0%      -529     -3.2%      9,463        3.1%

                                       Note 1: Rural Routes = Grizzly Flat, El Dorado Hills and South County
                                       Note 2: Special Event = Holly Jolly Trolley, Apple Hill Shuttle and Main Street Shuttle
                                       Source: EDCTA Administrative Operations Reports Fiscal Years 1996-97 through 2006-07.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                           Page 49
Page 50
                                                                         FIGURE 12: El Dorado County Transit Authority Annual Ridership



                                                          400,000




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                                                                 10-Year Growth = 94,626 Riders, or 35.6 Percent
                                                          350,000


                                                          300,000


                                                          250,000
                                                                                                                                          Other
                                                                                                                                          Special Event
                                                          200,000                                                                         Contract
                                                                                                                                          Dial-A-Ride
                                                                                                                                          Commuter




                                       Annual Ridership
                                                          150,000
                                                                                                                                          Local

                                                          100,000


                                                           50,000


                                                               0
                                                                    96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07
                                                                                                  Fiscal Year




   Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                                                  FIGURE 13: El Dorado County Transit Authority Historical Ridership by Service



                                                                        140,000




Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                                        120,000




                                                                        100,000




                                                                         80,000




                                                                         60,000




                                       Annual One-Way Passenger-Trips
                                                                         40,000




                                                                         20,000




                                                                             0
                                                                                  1996-97    1997-98     1998-99   1999-00       2000-01    2001-02   2002-03     2003-04       2004-05       2005-06      2006-07
                                                                                  Local Routes     Rural Routes    Dial-A-Ride      Commuter Routes    Contracted Social Services         Sac-Med       Special Event




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                           Page 51
Page 52
                                       FIGURE 14: Proportion of Annual El Dorado County Transit Authority
                                                            Ridership by Service
                                                                  Local
                                                                  38.9%




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                            Other
                                            0.4%




                                            Dial-A-Ride
                                               9.2%
                                                                                           Commuter
                                                                                             36.9%

                                               Special Event
                                                   3.8%

                                                               Contract
                                                                10.7%




   Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                       TABLE 11: El Dorado County Transit Authority - Local and Rural Routes Historical Ridership
                                          Annual One-way Passenger Trips
                                                                                                                               Diamond Springs/
                                                                     Placerville Routes (1)          Pollock Pines              Cameron Park         Grizzly Flat    South County    Discontinued Routes (2)             Total
                                                                                                                                                                %             %
                                              Fiscal Year               #        % Change           #        % Change           #        % Change    #      Change    #     Change       #       % Change        #          % Change


                                                1996-97              57,798           --         28,117            --         28,430           --             --      --      --         --          --        114,345              --
                                                1997-98              53,989        -6.6%         24,715        -12.1%         27,336        -3.8%   629       --      --      --        823          --        107,492           -6.0%
                                                1998-99              53,652        -0.6%         26,444          7.0%         20,820       -23.8%   885     40.7%     --      --         --          --        101,801           -5.3%
                                                1999-00              56,534         5.4%         27,984          5.8%         28,305        36.0%   638    -27.9%     --      --         --          --        113,461           11.5%
                                                2000-01              54,401        -3.8%         25,621         -8.4%         24,439       -13.7%   553    -13.3%     --      --         57          --        105,071           -7.4%
                                                2001-02              53,519        -1.6%         21,426        -16.4%         24,608         0.7%   647     17.0%     --      --         76          --        100,276           -4.6%
                                                2002-03              54,414         1.7%         21,345         -0.4%         24,755         0.6%   601     -7.1%     --      --         --          --        101,115            0.8%
                                                2003-04              59,315         9.0%         21,749          1.9%         26,725         8.0%   451    -25.0%     --      --         --          --        108,240            7.0%
                                                2004-05              57,097        -3.7%         19,296        -11.3%         28,893         8.1%   397    -12.0%     --      --         --          --        105,683           -2.4%
                                                2005-06              63,506        11.2%         18,549         -3.9%         27,752        -3.9%   459     15.6%    210      --         --          --        110,476            4.5%
                                                2006-07              82,221        29.5%         20,711         11.7%         37,401        34.8%   596     29.8%    147   -30.0%        --          --        141,076           27.7%

                                       Total Growth                  24,423        42.3%          -7,406       -26.3%         8,971        31.6%    -33     -5.2%    -63   -30.0%        --          --        26,731            23.4%
                                       Average Annual Growth          2,442         3.6%           -741         -3.0%          897          2.8%     -4     -0.6%    -63   -30.0%        --          --         2,673             2.1%

                                       Note 1: Placerville Routes = Hangtown Shuttle, Placerville East, Placerville West and Placerville Express
                                       Note 2: Discontinued Routes = El Dorado Hills and Georgetown.
                                       Source: EDCTA Administrative Operations Reports Fiscal Years 1996-97 through 2006-07.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                           Page 53
    Over the ten-year period, the Pollock Pines route has seen a 26.3 percent decrease in ridership or an
    average annual decrease of 3.0 percent. However, service frequency improvements made during FY
    2006/07 resulted in an 11.7 percent growth in ridership from FY 2005/06 levels.

    Ridership on the Diamond Springs and Cameron Park routes has increased by 31.6 percent over the
    ten-year period. Up until FY 2006/07 these routes were operated with one bus which resulted long
    wait times for connecting or return trips. After the restructuring of these routes, combined ridership
    on both routes increased by 34.8 percent in FY 2006/07 from the previous year.

    The rural Grizzly Flat and South County routes have less than 1,000 annual one-way passenger-trips
    each. The South County route ridership declined between the first and second years of service. The
    Grizzly Flat route dropped from a high of 885 trips in FY 1998/99 to a low of 397 trips in 2004/05,
    but has subsequently increased to a 2006/07 figure of 596. Table 11 also presents data for two local
    routes (El Dorado Hills and Georgetown) that were discontinued due to low ridership.

Table 12 presents a review of trends in vehicle service hours, which increased by 59.7 percent over the
data period. Figure 15 graphically displays the 10-year growth in vehicle service hours. As shown,
changes in vehicle-hours of service parallels ridership trends, except for Contracted Social Services where
vehicle service hours decreased by 40.2 percent over the ten-year period and ridership only decreased by
0.4 percent. The largest increase in vehicle service hours over the ten-year period (687.1 percent or 22.9
percent average annual growth) occurred on the DAR system. The largest proportional decease in vehicle
service hours occurred on the rural routes (41.5 percent or 5.8 percent annually).

Vehicle service mile data, as shown in Table 13, indicates that mileage has increased by 70 percent over
the most recent ten-year period. Mileage associated with the DAR system has increased ten-fold over the
period under review. The SAC-MED route has also increased vehicle service miles significantly over the
lifetime of the program (75.0 percent). Vehicle service miles have decreased by 80.4 percent on the rural
routes. It should be noted that vehicle service miles incorrectly included deadhead miles for years
1997/2003. Therefore, in FY 2003/04, there appears to be a large decrease in vehicle service miles.

A comparison of one-way passenger-trips per vehicle service hour (“productivity”) for the same time
period is presented in Table 14. In FY 2006/07, EDCTA carried roughly 7.0 one-way passenger-trips per
vehicle service hour over all services. Systemwide, productivity has decreased by 1.2 one-way passenger-
trips per vehicle service hour since FY 1996/97. When individual services are examined, only the
Contracted Social Services and SAC-MED routes had increases in productivity (2.5 and 0.2 passengers
per vehicle service hour, respectively). It should be noted that productivity of transit services typically
declines as services expand, reflecting that expansions of service are typically into geographic areas or
times of day with relatively low ridership potential. The DAR route had the largest decrease in
productivity, (5.2 passengers per vehicle service hour) or an average annual decrease of 11.2 percent over
the ten-year period, followed by the rural and local routes with an average annual decrease in productivity
of 1.5 percent and 1.3 percent, respectively). This decline in DAR productivity, however, may be a result
in changes in ridership categories; since 2000/01, productivity on DAR has been relatively constant.

Ridership by Day of Week

Ridership by day of week is presented in Table 15. This data was derived using daily service reports for
October 21-27, 2006 and March 10-16, 2007. Systemwide, ridership was greatest on Monday; however,
ridership by day of the week varies between each type of service. Local route ridership is highest on
Tuesdays, commuter ridership peaks on Wednesdays, while DAR ridership peaks on Thursday. Overall,
Fridays represent the weekday with the lowest ridership.


LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                 Western El Dorado County
Page 54                                                                           2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                       TABLE 12: El Dorado County Transit Authority Historical Annual Vehicle Hours of Service

                                                                                                                                 Contracted




Western El Dorado County
                                                                                       Rural                     Commuter          Social               Special




2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                Fiscal Year           Local Routes    Routes(1)    Dial-A-Ride    Routes          Services    Sac-Med   Event(2)   Total


                                                  1996-97                12,690          --           1,784        6,606          10,451         --       730      32,261
                                                  1997-98                11,547         568           1,267        6,709          9,301          --       399      29,791
                                                  1998-99                12,384         199           1,649        6,928          8,191          --       505      29,856
                                                  1999-00                11,589         216           2,255        8,151          7,799          --       581      30,591
                                                  2000-01                11,530         444           6,621        8,697          5,559          --       547      33,398
                                                  2001-02                11,991         254           6,561       10,188          5,461          --       153      34,608
                                                  2002-03                11,739         185           7,071       10,095          5,597         219        91      34,997
                                                  2003-04                11,939         196           7,908        9,818          6,046         350       101      36,358
                                                  2004-05                11,292         189          10,595        9,381          6,088         348       161      38,054
                                                  2005-06                11,323         325          13,093        9,076          5,828         417       587      40,649
                                                  2006-07                17,713         332          14,042       12,169          6,246         482       547      51,531

                                       Total Change                      5,023          -236         12,258       5,563            -4,205       263      -183      19,270
                                       % Change                          39.6%         -41.5%       687.1%        84.2%           -40.2%      120.1%    -25.1%     59.7%
                                       Average Annual Change              502            -26         1,226         556             -421         66        -18      1,927
                                       % Average Annual Change            3.4%         -5.8%         22.9%         6.3%            -5.0%       21.8%    -2.8%      4.8%


                                       Note 1: Rural Routes = Grizzly Flat, El Dorado Hills and South County
                                       Note 2: Special Event = Holly Jolly Trolley, Apple Hill Shuttle and Main Street Shuttle
                                       Source: EDCTA Administrative Operations Reports Fiscal Years 1996-97 through 2006-07.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                           Page 55
Page 56
                                                                                     FIGURE 15: El Dorado County Transit Authority Annual Vehicle-Hours of Service




                                                                         60,000




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                                                         50,000                   10-Year Growth = 19,270 Vehicle-Hours, or 59.7 Percent



                                                                         40,000
                                                                                                                                                                                Other
                                                                                                                                                                                Special Event
                                                                         30,000                                                                                                 Contract
                                                                                                                                                                                Dial-A-Ride
                                                                                                                                                                                Commuter
                                                                         20,000                                                                                                 Local




                                       Annual Vehicle-Hours of Service
                                                                         10,000



                                                                             0
                                                                                  96-97   97-98   98-99   99-00   00-01     01-02       02-03   03-04   04-05   05-06   06-07
                                                                                                                          Fiscal Year




   Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                       TABLE 13: El Dorado Transit Historical Annual Vehicle Miles of Service
                                                                            Local        Rural                  Commuter         Contracted                  Special




Western El Dorado County
                                                  Fiscal Year              Routes       Routes(1)   Dial-A-Ride  Routes        Social Services     Sac-Med   Event(2)     Total




2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                   1996-97                 219,310         --          28,606      325,269          83,919           --       9,815      666,919
                                                   1997-98                 212,155       42,872        25,022      233,952         179,253           --       5,773      699,027
                                                   1998-99                 211,425       8,530        37,519       240,553         174,270           --       6,497      678,794
                                                   1999-00                 218,164       6,423         45,915      298,784         168,360           --       7,325      744,971
                                                   2000-01                 214,950       11,121       147,596      355,158         185,341           --       7,290      921,456
                                                   2001-02                 214,256       8,802        142,861      452,302         180,811           --       2,496     1,001,528
                                                   2002-03                 217,887       6,239        286,912      463,369         180,820         8,430      1,252     1,164,909
                                                  2003-04(3)               209,664       4,502        181,339      351,741         131,337         11,825      831       891,239
                                                   2004-05                 192,804       4,795        220,171      297,758         128,016         11,032     1,309      855,885
                                                   2005-06                 195,253       7,503        281,294      285,578         121,033         12,780     7,053      910,494
                                                   2006-07                 287,872       8,398        319,318      364,722         131,709         14,749     7,083     1,133,851

                                       Total Change                        68,562        -34,474      290,712      39,453          47,790           6,319    -2,732     466,932
                                       % Change                             31.3%        -80.4%      1016.3%        12.1%          56.9%            75.0%    -27.8%      70.0%
                                       Average Annual Change                6,856        -3,830       29,071        3,945           4,779           1,580     -273       46,693
                                       % Average Annual Change              2.8%         -16.6%        27.3%        1.2%            4.6%            15.0%    -3.2%        5.5%


                                       Note 1: Rural Routes = Grizzly Flat, El Dorado Hills and South County
                                       Note 2: Special Event = Holly Jolly Trolley, Apple Hill Shuttle and Main Street Shuttle
                                       Note 3: Prior to Fiscal Year 2003-2004 deadhead miles were incorrectly included in vehicle service miles.
                                       Source: EDCTA Administrative Operations Reports Fiscal Years 1996-97 through 2006-07.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                           Page 57
Page 58
                                       TABLE 14: El Dorado County Transit Authority Historical Productivity
                                          Passenger Trips per Vehicle Service Hour
                                                                                                                                 Contracted
                                                                                      Rural                        Commuter        Social               Special




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                               Fiscal Year          Local Routes     Routes(1)     Dial-A-Ride      Routes        Services    Sac-Med   Event(2)   Total

                                                1996-97                  9.0             --            7.8            12.1          3.7          --      26.1       8.2
                                                1997-98                  9.2            2.6            9.4            12.9          4.2          --      25.9       8.6
                                                1998-99                  8.1            4.4            8.0            13.5          4.7          --      18.5       8.6
                                                1999-00                  9.7            3.0            7.3            13.9          5.1          --      21.2       9.7
                                                2000-01                  9.1            1.4            2.6            14.2          7.2          --      16.4       8.8
                                                2001-02                  8.3            2.9            2.5            12.7          8.0          --       7.5       8.4
                                                2002-03                  8.6            3.2            2.5            13.1          8.1         1.3       8.4       8.5
                                                2003-04                  9.0            2.3            2.8            13.3          8.3         1.7       9.3       8.6
                                                2004-05                  9.3            2.1            2.6            14.2          8.0         1.5       8.2       8.3
                                                2005-06                  9.7            2.1            2.5            14.8          6.5         1.6      15.2       8.0
                                                2006-07                  7.9            2.2            2.4            10.9          6.2         1.6      25.2       7.0

                                               10-Year Change           -1.1            -0.3           -5.4           -1.2          2.5         0.2      -0.9       -1.2
                                        Average Annual Change          -1.3%           -1.5%         -11.2%          -1.0%         5.2%        4.3%     -0.4%      -1.6%

                                       Note 1: Rural Routes = Grizzly Flat, El Dorado Hills and South County
                                       Note 2: Special Event = Holly Jolly Trolley, Apple Hill Shuttle and Main Street Shuttle
                                       Source: EDCTA Administrative Operations Reports Fiscal Years 1996-97 through 2006-07.




   Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                       TABLE 15: El Dorado County Transit Authority Ridership by Day of Week
                                                                                                                   Average Daily Ridership                                                Average Per
                                        General Services                              Monday       Tuesday      Wednesday Thursday     Friday                  Saturday Sunday             Weekday

                                        Local Routes
                                          Placerville East/West                         255           265             242             261           236           118           --              252




Western El Dorado County
                                          Placerville Express                           74            67              78               68           82             --           --               74




2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                          Diamond Springs/Cameron Park                  186           206             189             196           136           17            --              183
                                          Pollock Pines                                 87            96              89               81           75            10            --               85

                                           Subtotal Local Routes                       601           633             598             605           529            144           0              593
                                           Proportion of Weekly Total                 19.3%         20.3%           19.2%           19.5%         17.0%          4.6%         0.0%              –

                                        Commuter Routes
                                          Iron Point Connector(1)                       24            27              16               28           19             5            --               23
                                          AM PM Commuter Routes                         519           540             579             529           405            --           --              514
                                          Reverse Commuter Route                         4             6               5               2             6             --           --               5

                                           Subtotal Commuter Routes                     546          572             600             558           430             --           --             541
                                           Proportion of Weekly Total                  20.2%        21.1%           22.2%           20.6%         15.9%            --           --              –

                                        Dial-A-Ride                                     100           113             118             129           128            43           23             118
                                           Proportion of Weekly Total                 15.3%         17.2%           18.1%           19.8%         19.6%          6.5%         3.4%               –

                                        Contracted Social Services
                                          MORE                                          118           122             129             125           103            --           --              119
                                          Senior Day Care                               28            39              33               39           32             --           --               34

                                           Subtotal Social Services                    146           160             162             164           135             --           --              153
                                           Proportion of Weekly Total                 19.0%         20.9%           21.1%           21.3%         17.6%            --           --               –

                                           Total Daily Ridership                       1,393        1,317           1,315           1,292         1,087           187          23             1,281
                                           Proportion of Weekly Total                  21.1%        19.9%           19.9%           19.5%         16.4%          2.8%         0.3%              –


                                        Note: Data from March 10 - 16, 2007 and October 21 - 27, 2006 were used as a sample to represent ridership on a typical weekday.

                                        Note 1: The Iron Point Connector operated on Saturdays during the time period reviewed. Saturday service has since been discontinued due to low ridership.
                                        Source: El Dorado County Transit Authority.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                           Page 59
Ridership by Month

Monthly ridership data by route/service for the most recent FY is presented in Table 16. As shown, total
systemwide ridership is highest in the month of October, due in part to the seasonal Apple Hill Shuttle.
March and May also represent high transit activity months. Ridership is the lowest in the months of July,
December, and February.

Reviewing Ridership-by-month provides an opportunity to evaluate the improvement over time of new
services, such as the Placerville Express and the IPC. As shown in Table 16, ridership on the Placerville
Express has decreased over the fiscal year, but the IPC has shown some improvement. It should be noted
that dips in ridership during the summer months on the IPC reflect at least in part the relatively high
proportion of student passengers on this route.

Detailed Passenger Activity – Local and Rural Routes

Boardings and Alightings by Stop

EDCTA drivers do not record passenger activity by stop for the local and rural routes as part of their daily
routine, though a total summary of boardings for each run of the route is recorded. To provide
information on passenger activity at stop, EDCTA drivers were provided a survey form to record
boardings and alightings at each stop along their routes for the weekdays between November 8 and 15,
2007. While some boardings and alightings may have been omitted from the survey form, the results
reveal general trends in passenger activity by stop for the local and rural routes. Tables 17 through 23
present the average of the total passenger boardings and passenger alightings at each stop for the week of
November 8–15, 2007 for each of the individual routes:

    Placerville Routes – Boardings and alightings on the Placerville routes are presented in Table 17.
    Overall, the greatest number of boardings and alightings was recorded at the Missouri Flat Transfer
    Center (81 boardings, 64 alightings) and Placerville Station (37 boardings, 27 alightings). Average
    weekday boardings and alightings recorded at the following stops were less than one: 3177 Turner
    St., Ridgecrest, Snowline Hospice and Woodridge. As an “express” route through Placerville, the
    Placerville Express route has seven stops. Significantly more boardings and alightings were recorded
    at the Missouri Flat Transfer Center, Old City Hall and Placerville Station than Big 5, Home Depot,
    Library, and Regal Theaters.

    Cameron Park – As shown in Table 18, the Missouri Flat Transfer Station had the greatest number
    of boardings and alightings during the review period (19 boardings, 26 alightings), followed by
    Safeway (12 boardings, 8 alightings) and Cameron Park Drive/Green Valley Road (11 boardings, 9
    alightings). Less than one average weekday boarding or alighting was recorded at 13 of the 23 stops.
    Three or fewer boardings and alightings were recorded at various flag stops. Verada Drive was the
    flag stop with the most passenger activity.

    Diamond Springs – As shown in Table 19, bus stops with the greatest number of boardings and
    alightings on the Diamond Springs route were the Missouri Flat Transfer Station (29 boardings, 39
    alightings), Pleasant Valley/Church Street (11 boardings, 4 alightings) and Union Mine High School
    (10 boardings, 5 alightings). On average there was less than 1 boarding or alighting at Panther Lane
    during this week in November. Popular flag stops along this route include Panorama Mobile Home
    Park and Vision Center.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                 Western El Dorado County
Page 60                                                                           2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                       TABLE 16: Total El Dorado County Transit Authority Ridership by Month, Fiscal Year 2006-07

                                                                                                         Local Routes                                         Rural Routes                                           Commuter Routes
                                                                                                                            Diamond
                                                                                                                            Springs/     Subtotal                            Subtotal                                                     Subtotal    Contracted
                                                                            Placerville Placerville          Pollock        Cameron       Local     Grizzly     South         Rural     Dial- A-     Sacto   Reverse              Rancho Commute        Social              Special
                                       Month                                East/ West Express                Pines           Park       Routes      Flat       County       Routes      Ride      Commuter Commuter Iron Point   Cordova r Routes     Services Sac - Med   Event(1)    Total    % Avg.

                                       July 2006                               4,593             --           1,106              1,550    7,249       46          11           57        2,843       9,952      70         241         37   10,300      2,949       71        0        23,469     78.1%
                                       August                                  5,698           1,129          1,683              2,628   11,138       70          18           88        3,149      12,099      58         336         --   12,493      3,516      120        0        30,504    101.5%
                                       September                               5,807           1,309          1,697              3,539   12,352       46          10           56        2,878      10,209      60         443         --   10,712      3,217       56       407       29,678     98.7%
                                       October                                 5,825           1,477          1,598              3,699   12,599       49          12           61        2,771      10,668      78         504         --   11,250      3,348       95      9,628      39,752    132.3%
                                       November                                5,395           1,392          1,469              3,209   11,465       45          14           59        2,504       9,536      53         410         --    9,999      3,034       61        0        27,122     90.2%
                                       December                                5,041           1,318          1,427              2,432   10,218       37           7           44        2,459       8,476      54         437         --    8,967      2,946       57      1,578      26,269     87.4%
                                       January 2007                            5,893           1,435          1,869              3,343   12,540       57          10           67        2,704      11,012      80         443         --   11,535      3,322       51       445       30,664    102.0%
                                       February                                5,164           1,244          1,752              3,073   11,233       45           4           49        2,429       9,390      40         480         --    9,910      3,001       47       378       27,047     90.0%
                                       March                                   6,703           1,629          2,186              4,356   14,874       53          11           64        3,051      11,483      75         636         --   12,194      3,438       42       415       34,078    113.4%
                                       April                                   6,395           1,351          2,050              3,525   13,321       48          15           63        2,827      10,595      36         809         --   11,440      3,177       54       412       31,294    104.1%
                                       May                                     5,879           1,185          2,215              3,783   13,062       54          12           66        2,917      11,755      68         871         --   12,694      3,431       60       331       32,561    108.3%
                                       June                                    5,577            782           1,659              2,264   10,282       46          23           69        2,788      10,797      95         695         --   11,587      3,249       43       203       28,221     93.9%

                                       Subtotal                               67,970          14,251         20,711          37,401      140,333     596          147          743      33,320     125,972     767        6,305        37   133,081    38,628      757      13,797     360,659     –
                                       Monthly Average                        5,664           1,188          1,726           3,117        11,694     50           12            62      2,777       10,498      64         525          3   11,090      3,219       63       1,150     30,055      –
                                       % of Systemwide Total                   18.8%           4.0%            5.7%          10.4%       38.9%       0.2%        0.0%         0.2%       9.2%       34.9%      0.2%       1.7%    0.01%     36.9%      10.7%      0.2%       3.8%      100.0%      –


                                       Note 1: Special Event = Holly Jolly Trolley, Apple Hill Shuttle and Main Street Shuttle
                                       Source: EDCTA Administrative Operations Reports, July 2006 through June 2007.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                           Page 61
TABLE 17: El Dorado County Transit Authority Placerville Routes Average Weekday Passenger
Activity by Stop
 Week of November 8 - 15, 2007

                                Placerville East       Placerville West      Placerville Express          Total
                              Boardings Alightings   Boardings Alightings   Boardings Alightings   Boardings Alightings
3177 Turner St.                   0          1           --         --         --         --          0           1
Bdwy / Carson                     --         --          4          0          --         --          4           0
Bdwy/Schnll Sch.                  --         --          6          0          --         --          6           0
Bee / Coloma                      1          3           2          0          --         --          3           3
Big 5                             4          2           --         --         2          3           6           5
Big Lots                          6          1           1          5          --         --          7           6
Broadway / Point View             2          9           --         --         --         --          2           9
Clay / New Jersey                 1          3           1          0          --         --          2           3
Cold Springs Dental               6          2           --         --         --         --          6           2
Coloma Ct                         3          8           9          4          --         --          12          12
Cottonwood                        1          8           4          2          --         --          5           10
DMV                               --         --          3          4          --         --          3           4
El Dorado HS                      0          5           2          1          --         --          2           6
Fairgrounds                       1          1           0          2          --         --          1           3
Forni / Lo-Hi                     3          1           1          4          --         --          4           5
Fowler Way                        0          1           1          1          --         --          1           2
Gold Country                      0          5           --         --         --         --          0           5
Hidden Spr MHP                    1          1           1          1          --         --          2           2
Home Depot                        1          2           0          0          1          2           2           4
Human Services                    2          3           1          3          --         --          3           6
Library                           3          2           1          4          3          6           7           12
Marshall Hospital                 0          4           3          2          --         --          3           6
Midtown Mall                      --         --          3          6          --         --          3           6
Missouri Flat Transfer Ctr.       49         3           1          26         31         35          81          64
MORE                              6          2           0          6          --         --          6           8
Old City Hall                     6          10          7          3          15         13          28          26
Pacific / Clark                   1          3           --         --         --         --          1           3
Phoenix Ctr                       2          1           --         --         --         --          2           1
Placerville PO                    2          5           5          3          --         --          7           8
Placerville Station               3          10          14         1          20         16          37          27
Raley's                           13         6           5          11         --         --          18          17
Regal Theaters                    --         --          3          2          3          2           6           4
Ridgecrest                        0          1           0          0          --         --          0           1
Rite-Aid                          0          5           --         --         --         --          0           5
Senior Center                     6          3           5          4          --         --          11          7
Snowline Hosp.                    --         --          0          1          --         --          0           1
Tunnel St Apts                    2          4           4          2          --         --          6           6
Turner Ct.                        0          1           --         --         --         --          0           1
Upper Room                        4          6           --         --         --         --          4           6
Woodmans                          --         --          6          3          --         --          6           3
Woodridge                         0          1           1          0          --         --          1           1

Total                            129        123          94        101         75         77          298        301

Source: EDCTA, 2007




 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                         Western El Dorado County
 Page 62                                                                                   2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                       TABLE 18: El Dorado Transit Authority
                                       Cameron Park Routes Average Weekday
                                       Passenger Activity by Stop
                                        Week of November 8 - 15, 2007




Western El Dorado County
                                                                           Boardings Alightings   TABLE 19: El Dorado County Transit




2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                       Route Stops                                                Authority Diamond Springs Routes Average
                                       Missouri Flat Transfer Station         21         24       Weekday Passenger Activity by Stop
                                       Safeway                                12         8         Week of November 8 - 15, 2007
                                       Cameron Park Dr / Green Valley Rd      11         9
                                                                                                                                     Boardings Alightings
                                       Cimmeron / La Canada                   3          5
                                       Mother Lode / So. Shingle               2         3        Missouri Flat Transfer Station        29         39
                                       Bel Air                                 2         2        Plsnt. Vlly / Church St.              11          4
                                       La Crescenta / Green Valley Rd         1          2        Union Mine High School                10         5
                                       Country Club / Garden Circle            1         1        Lake Oaks / Patterson                  5         2
                                       Marshall Medical, Cameron Park         1          0        Eskaton Lincoln Manor                  5          2
                                       Eskaton Lincoln Manor                   0         4        Independence High School              4          2
                                       Mother Lode / Blanchard                0          0        Pearl Place / Courtside                3         2
                                       Mother Lode / Davidson                 0          0        Plsnt. Vlly / Oro Lane                 2          1
                                       Mother Lode / Production               0          0        Plsnt. Vlly / Diamond Meadows          1          2
                                       Ponderosa High School                  0          0        Golden Center Ct.                      1          1
                                       Durock Center                           0         0        Diamond Springs Mobile Home Park      1          2
                                       Market Court                            0         0        Panther                                0          0
                                       Cambridge / Sandhurst                  0          0        EDCTA Offices                          0          4
                                       Cameron Park Library                   0          0
                                       Cambridge Rd P & R                      0         0        Total                                 72         66
                                       Country Club / Cambridge               0          0
                                       Mother Lode / Summit View               0         0        Source: EDCTA, 2007
                                       Mother Lode / Pleasant Valley           0         0
                                       Mother Lode / Blanchard                0          0

                                       Total                                  54         58




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                           Page 63
    Folsom Lake College – As shown in Table 20, high activity stops on this route are the Missouri Flat
    Transfer Center (48 boardings, 41 alightings) and the Child Development Center at the College (24
    boardings, 21 alightings).

    Pollock Pines – The Pollock Pines route (Table 21) has 10 regularly scheduled stops with one stop at
    the Missouri Flat Transfer Center at 7:40 AM. During the week under review, passenger activity was
    recorded at 56 flag stops. Stops with the greatest passenger activity were: Placerville Station (37
    boardings, 27 alightings) and Safeway Plaza at Pony Express Trail (16 boardings, 11 alightings). The
    Alder Road/Pony Express stop was the most common flag stop.

    Rural Routes – Only 15 average weekday boardings and alightings were recorded on both the
    Grizzly Flat and South County routes (Table 22). Most passenger activity was recorded on the
    northwestern portion of these runs between the Missouri Flat Transfer Center and Pleasant Valley
    Square.

Total combined average weekday boardings and alightings by stop for all rural and local routes is shown
in Table 23. Over the review period, the Missouri Flat Transfer Station served an average weekday
passenger activity of 180 boardings and 183 alightings. Other well-used bus stops include Placerville
Station, Old City Hall, Child Development at Folsom Lake College, Safeway on Pony Express Trail, and
Raley’s on Placerville Drive. Less than 1 average weekday boarding was recorded at a total of 23 EDCTA
local and rural route bus stops. Most of these stops with low activity are located on the Grizzly Flat, South
County and Cameron Park routes.

Boardings and Alightings By-Hour of Day

The same driver survey data for the week of November 8th to 15th, 2007 used to evaluate activity by stop
was also evaluated with regards to ridership activity by-hour of the day:

    Figure 16 displays average weekday boardings for the Placerville routes. The greatest number of
    boardings occurred in the afternoon around 2:00 PM and 3:00 PM.

    As shown in Figure 17, boardings on the Folsom Lake College route peak in the morning at 7:00 AM
    with another spike in ridership at 1:00 PM.

    The Cameron Park route also has the greatest number of boardings in the morning at 6:00 AM. The
    Diamond Springs route has more consistent ridership throughout the day with a peak in average
    weekday boardings at 10:00 AM.

    Ridership-by-hour for the Pollock Pines route is displayed in Figure 18. As this route generally serves
    residents in the more rural areas of the County who require travel to Placerville for shopping and
    appointments, the largest concentration of boardings occurs during the 7:00 AM hour with a more
    continuous level of boardings in the afternoon hours.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                 Western El Dorado County
Page 64                                                                           2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                           TABLE 20: El Dorado County Transit
                           Authority Folsom Lake College Routes
                           Average Weekday Passenger Activity by
                           Stop
                                Week of November 8 - 15, 2007

                                                            Boardings      Alightings

                           Missouri Flat Transfer Center         48           41
                           Child Development                     24           21
                           Prospector Plaza                      7            9
                           Safeway                               5             1
                           Folsom Lake College                   4            11
                           Green Valley Church                   0            0

                           Total                                 88           83

                           Source: EDCTA, 2007




                            TABLE 21: El Dorado County Transit
                            Authority Pollock Pines Routes Average
                            Weekday Passenger Activity by Stop
                                Week of November 8 - 15, 2007
                                                                 Boardings Alightings

                            Placerville Station                       37         27
                            Safeway Plaza (Pony Express Trail)        16         11
                            Carson / Larsen                           5          2
                            Gold Country Inn                          0          0
                            Pony Exp. / Sanders                       4           2
                            Pollock Pines P.O.                        3          5
                            Broadway / Carson                         2          8
                            Broadway / Schnell Sch.                   2          5
                            Camino P.O.                               2          3
                            Missouri Flat Transfer Ctr                0          10
                            Camino Heights Dr. and US 50              0          0

                            Total                                     71         73

                            Source: EDCTA, 2007




Western El Dorado County                                                      LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                            Page 65
                      TABLE 22: El Dorado County Transit Authority
                      Rural Routes Average Weekday Passenger
                      Activity by Stop
                        Week of November 8 - 15, 2007

                                                                     Boardings        Alightings
                      Grizzly Flat
                      Prospector Plaza                                     3               1
                      Missouri Flat Transfer Center                        2               3
                      Pleasant Valley Square                               2               1
                      Mt. Aukum / Grizzly Flat                             1               2
                      Oak Hill Center                                      1               1
                      Sciaroni / Capps Crossing                            1               0
                      Evergreen / String Canyon                            1               0
                      Golden Center                                        0               0
                      Pleasant Valley / Diamond Meadows                    0               0
                      Pleasant Valley / Bucks Bar                          0               0
                      Pearts Little Place                                  0               0
                      Winding Way                                          0               0
                      Grizzly Flat / Pine Ridge                            0               0
                      Pearts Little Place                                  0               0

                      South County 1
                      Prospector Plaza                                     1               1
                      Missouri Flat Transfer Center                        1               0
                      Pleasant Valley Square                               0               0
                      Three Forks Grange                                   0               0
                      Bistro / Fairplay                                    0               0
                      Pioneer Park Community Center                        0               0
                      Outingdale Road                                      0               0
                      Mt. Aukum / Grizzly Flat                             0               0

                      Total                                               13               9

                      Note 1: Data for South County route represents one day only (November 13, 2007).
                      Source: EDCTA, 2007




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                              Western El Dorado County
Page 66                                                                                        2008 Short Range Transit Plan
TABLE 23: El Dorado County Transit Authority Total Average Weekday Passenger Activity for Local
and Rural Routes
  Week of November 8 - 15, 2007

EDCTA Bus Stops                               Boardings         Alightings EDCTA Bus Stops                               Boardings     Alightings
Missouri Flat Transfer Station                     180               183        Bel Air (Goldorado Center)                    2             2
Placerville Station                                74                54         Hidden Spr MHP                                2             2
Old City Hall                                      28                26         Phoenix Ctr                                   2             1
Child Development (FLC)                            24                21         Pleasant Valley Square                        2             1
Safeway (Pony Express Trail)                       21                12         Plsnt. Vlly / Oro Lane                        2             1
Raley's (Placerville Dr.)                          18                17         Fairgrounds                                   1             3
Coloma Ct                                          12                12         Pacific / Clark                               1             3
Safeway (Cameron Park Place)                       12                 8         Diamond Springs MHP                           1             2
Prospector Plaza                                   11                11         Fowler Way                                    1             2
Cameron Park Dr / Green Valley Rd                  11                 9         La Crescenta / Green Valley Rd                1             2
Placerville Senior Center                          11                 7         Mt. Aukum / Grizzly Flat                      1             2
Plsnt. Vlly / Church St.                           11                 4         Plsnt. Vlly / Diam.Mead.                      1             2
Union Mine HS                                      10                 5         Country Club / Garden Cir                     1             1
Placerville Library                                 7                12         Golden Center Court (Placerville)             1             1
Placerville PO                                      7                 8         Oak Hill Ctr                                  1             1
Big Lots (Fair Lane)                                7                 6         Woodridge                                     1             1
MORE                                                6                 8         Evergreen / String Canyon                     1             0
Tunnel St Apts                                      6                 6         Marshall Medical (Cameron Park)               1             0
Big 5 (Placerville Dr.)                             6                 5         Sciaroni / Capps Crossing                     1             0
Regal Theaters                                      6                 4         Rite-Aid (Placerville)                        0             5
Woodmans                                            6                 3         EDCTA Offices                                 0             4
Cold Springs Dental                                 6                 2         Camino Heights                                0             2
Bdwy/Schnll Sch.                                    6                 0         3177 Turner St.                               0             1
Cottonwood                                          5                10         Ridgecrest                                    0             1
Eskaton Lincoln Manor                               5                 6         Snowline Hosp.                                0             1
Gold Country Inn                                    5                 6         Turner Ct.                                    0             1
Carson / Larsen                                     5                 2         Bistro / Fairplay                             0             0
Lakes Oaks / Patterson                              5                 2         Cambridge / Sandhurst                         0             0
Folsom Lake College                                 4                11         Cambridge Rd P & R                            0             0
Upper Room                                          4                 6         Cameron Park Library                          0             0
Forni / Lo-Hi                                       4                 5         Country Club / Cambridge                      0             0
Independence HS                                     4                 2         Durock Center                                 0             0
Pony Exp. / Sanders                                 4                 2         Green Vlly Church                             0             0
Bdwy / Carson                                       4                 0         Grizzly Flat / Pine Ridge                     0             0
Human Services                                      3                 6         Market Court                                  0             0
Marshall Hospital                                   3                 6         Mother Lode / Blanchard                       0             0
Midtown Mall                                        3                 6         Mother Lode / Davidson                        0             0
Cimmeron / La Canada                                3                 5         Mother Lode / Pleasant Vlly                   0             0
Pollock Pines P.O.                                  3                 5         Mother Lode / Production                      0             0
DMV                                                 3                 4         Mother Lode / Summit View                     0             0
Bee / Coloma                                        3                 3         Outingdale Road                               0             0
Pearl Place / Courtside                             3                 2         Panther                                       0             0
Broadway / Point View                               2                 9         Pearts Little Place                           0             0
Broadway / Carson                                   2                 8         Pioneer Park Comm. Ctr                        0             0
El Dorado HS                                        2                 6         Ponderosa HS                                  0             0
Broadway / Schnell Sch.                             2                 5         PV / Bucks Bar                                0             0
Home Depot (Placerville Dr.)                        2                 4         PV / Diamond Meadows                          0             0
Camino P.O.                                         2                 3         Three Forks Grange                            0             0
Clay / New Jersey                                   2                 3         Winding Way                                   0             0
Mother Lode / So. Shingle                           2                 3

Note: Bus stops showing 0 passenger activity represents less than one average weekday boarding or alighting recorded.
Source: EDCTA, 2007




 Western El Dorado County                                                                                      LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
 2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                                                            Page 67
Page 68
                                                                                                 FIGURE 16: El Dorado County Transit Authority
                                                                                            Average Weekday Boardings by Hour - Placerville Routes
                                                                   45



                                                                   40



                                                                   35




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                                                   30



                                                                   25



                                                                   20




                                       Average Weekday Boardings
                                                                   15



                                                                   10



                                                                   5



                                                                   0
                                                                        7:00 AM   8:00 AM     9:00 AM   10:00 AM    11:00 AM     12:00 PM       1:00 PM    2:00 PM   3:00 PM   4:00 PM   5:00 PM
                                                                                                                               Hour Beginning


                                                                                                   Placerville Express   Placerville East       Placerville West




   Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                                          FIGURE 17: El Dorado County Transit Authority Average Weekday Boardings by Hour -
                                                                                    Cameron Park/Diamond Springs/Folsom Lake College Routes
                                                                   40




Western El Dorado County
                                                                   35




2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                                   30




                                                                   25




                                                                   20




                                                                   15




                                       Average Weekday Boardings
                                                                   10




                                                                   5




                                                                   0
                                                                        6:00 AM   7:00 AM   8:00 AM   9:00 AM   10:00 AM   11:00 AM   12:00 PM   1:00 PM   2:00 PM   3:00 PM   4:00 PM   5:00 PM
                                                                                                                           Hour Beginning

                                                                                              Cameron Park       Diamond Springs        Folsom Lake College




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                           Page 69
Page 70
                                                                                              FIGURE 18: El Dorado County Transit Authority
                                                                                        Average Weekday Boardings by Hour - Pollock Pines Route
                                                                   25




                                                                   20




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                                                   15




                                                                   10




                                       Average Weekday Boardings
                                                                   5




                                                                   0
                                                                        7:00 AM   8:00 AM   9:00 AM   10:00 AM   11:00 AM   12:00 PM   1:00 PM   2:00 PM   3:00 PM   4:00 PM   5:00 PM
                                                                                                                       Hour Beginning




   Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Detailed Passenger Activity – DAR

Origin/Destination Trip Patterns

Table 24 presents the distribution of origin/destination trip patterns for one day in October on the DAR
system. This data does not include trips provided for contracted social service clients or SAC-MED trips.
As shown, nearly half of non-social service DAR trips on October 24, 2006, began and ended in
Placerville. Trips between Cameron Park and Placerville and Diamond Springs and Placerville represent
the next most frequent trip pattern.

Boardings By-Hour of Day

Figure 19 presents average weekday DAR pickups for non-social service passengers by-hour of day. The
greatest number of boardings occurred during the 10:00 AM hour (12 pickups) followed by the noon hour
(10 pickups). The fewest average weekday boardings occurred during the 5:00 PM hour, although this
could be due to the fact that no return trip is available.

Detailed Passenger Activity – Sacramento Commuter Routes

Driver trip sheets for the week of March 12–16, 2007 were reviewed to determine average weekday
boardings for each commuter route. Similar to the passenger activity tables for the fixed-routes, complete
boarding activity was not available for one day during the week reviewed. Nevertheless, the data in the
following tables is still useful to analyze general ridership trends. As presented in Table 25, Commuter
Route 5 has the greatest total average weekday boardings (61 boardings). This is mainly due to high



TABLE 24: Dial-A-Ride Origin / Destination Trip Patterns - October 24, 2006


                                                                             To:
                                 Pollock                         Diamond      El     Shingle Cameron El Dorado
                                  Pines       Camino Placerville Springs    Dorado   Springs   Park     Hills  Rescue

         Pollock Pines            0.0%         0.0%          4.3%    0.0%   0.0%     0.0%      0.0%        0.0%       0.0%

         Camino                   0.0%         0.0%          0.0%    0.0%   0.0%     0.0%      0.0%        0.0%       0.0%

         Placerville              2.2%         0.0%          48.4%   6.5%   2.2%     0.0%      6.5%        1.1%       1.1%

         Diamond Springs          0.0%         0.0%          4.3%    4.3%   0.0%     0.0%      0.0%        0.0%       0.0%
 From:




         El Dorado                0.0%         0.0%          1.1%    0.0%   0.0%     1.1%      0.0%        0.0%       0.0%

         Shingle Springs          0.0%         0.0%          1.1%    0.0%   0.0%     0.0%      0.0%        0.0%       0.0%

         Cameron Park             0.0%         0.0%          6.5%    1.1%   0.0%     1.1%      3.2%        0.0%       0.0%

         El Dorado Hills          0.0%         0.0%          1.1%    0.0%   0.0%     0.0%      0.0%        1.1%       0.0%

         Rescue                   0.0%         0.0%          1.1%    1.1%   0.0%     0.0%      0.0%        0.0%       0.0%

Note: Does not include trips made for contracted social services.
Source: EDCTA




Western El Dorado County                                                                LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                                      Page 71
Page 72
                                                                  FIGURE 19: Average Weekday Dial-A-Ride Pickups
                                                                                 by Hour of Day

                                       14.0




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                       12.0


                                       10.0


                                        8.0


                                        6.0


                                        4.0


                                        2.0


                                        0.0
                                              7:00 AM   8:00 AM   9:00 AM   10:00 AM   11:00 AM   12:00 PM   1:00 PM   2:00 PM   3:00 PM   4:00 PM   5:00 PM
                                                                                             Hour Beginning




   Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Western El Dorado County
                                       TABLE 25: El Dorado County Transit Authority Average Weekday Commuter Route




2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                       Boarding Summary
                                         March 12 - 16, 2007
                                                                                                AM Routes                  PM Routes


                                                                                                                                                                        1
                                            Routes         Total Average Boardings         El Dorado County Stops   Sacramento Downtown Stops Reverse Commuter Routes
                                               1                        46                          26                         20                        --
                                               2                        44                          22                         22                        --
                                               3                        42                          25                         17                        --
                                               4                        43                          19                         24                        --
                                               5                        61                          25                         36                        --
                                               6                        38                          19                         17                        2
                                               7                        41                          19                         21                        1
                                               8                        44                          23                         22                        --
                                               9                        28                          --                         28                        --
                                               10                       41                          35                         7                         --
                                               11                       52                          26                         25                        --
                                               12                       45                          25                         20                        --

                                       Note 1: Reverse routes for AM and PM are combined

                                       Source: EDCTA, 2007




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                           Page 73
           TABLE 26: El Dorado County Transit Authority Commuter
           Route Average Weekday Boardings by Stop

           Stop                                                     Boardings       % of Total
           Rodeo Road Park & Ride                                       18             6.8%
           Cambridge Park & Ride                                        37            14.0%
           El Dorado Hills Park & Ride                                 118            44.7%
           El Dorado County Fairgrounds Park & Ride                     36            13.5%
           Ponderosa Park & Ride                                        43            16.3%
           Placerville Station                                          12             4.6%
           Total                                                       263            100.0%
           Source: EDCTA driver trip sheets March 12 -16, 2007



ridership on the PM portion of Commuter Route 5 (36 boardings in Sacramento). A relatively high
number of boardings occurred on the Commuter Route 10 AM route (35 El Dorado County boardings).
Only 7 average weekday boardings were recorded at Sacramento Downtown stops on the Commuter
Route 10 PM route. This is the last PM route of the day and leaves Sacramento at 6:30 PM.

Public comment has indicated that some of the Park-and-Ride lots in El Dorado County have reached
capacity. Therefore boarding data at the various El Dorado County stops along the Commuter routes was
reviewed and presented in Table 26. Approximately 44.5 percent of average weekday Commuter route
boardings in El Dorado County occur at the El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride or a total of 118 boardings.
Only 18 boardings or 6.8 percent were recorded at the Rodeo Road Park-and-Ride in Cameron Park and
12 boardings or 4.6 percent were recorded at Placerville Station.

Detailed Passenger Activity – Iron Point Commuter Routes

Table 27 presents average weekday boardings by-stop and by-run for the IPC during the week of March
12–16, 2007. The highest average weekday boardings were recorded on the 7:40 AM run (6.2 boardings
or 23.1 percent of total), followed closely by the 3:40 PM run (5.6 boardings or 20.9 percent of total).
Only 1.2 average weekday boardings were recorded on the 5:40 AM run. Approximately, 29.9 percent of
total boardings (8.0 boardings) occurred at the El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride. Other popular stops were
the Iron Point Light Rail Station (6.2 boardings) and the Missouri Flat Transfer Center (5.8 boardings).
As there is only 1 scheduled stop at the El Dorado County Fairgrounds Park-and-Ride, less than 1 average
weekday boarding was recorded there.

FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Cost Allocation Model

Existing EDCTA operating costs were analyzed to assess those factors that impact cost levels. Each cost
item is allocated to that quantity – vehicle service hour, vehicle service mile, vehicle or fixed costs – upon
which it is most dependent. Fuel costs, for example, are allocated to vehicle service miles. When divided
by the total quantity of service budgeted in FY 2006/07, a “cost equation” can be developed, as presented
in Table 28 below. This equation is:

    Operating Cost = $0.89 x annual vehicle service miles +
                                       $61.90 x annual vehicle service hours +
                                                        $792,713 in annual fixed costs.

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                  Western El Dorado County
Page 74                                                                            2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                       TABLE 27: El Dorado County Transit Authority Average Weekday Iron Point Commuter Passengers
                                                                                                                                              Average Passengers
                                       Stops                           5:40 AM   7:40 AM   9:40 AM   11:40 AM   1:40 PM   3:40 PM   5:40 PM        per Stop

                                       Missouri Flat Transfer Center     0.6       3.0       0.8       0.4        0.4       0.4       0.2            5.8
                                       EDC Fairgrounds Park and Ride     0.0        --        --        --         --        --        --            0.0
                                       Ponderosa Road Park and Ride      0.4       0.8       0.0       0.0        0.2       0.0       0.2            1.6
                                       Cambridge Road Park and Ride      0.0       0.2       0.4       0.0        0.0       0.0       0.2            0.8
                                       El Dorado Hills Park and Ride     0.0       1.0       0.6       1.2        0.4       1.4       1.0            5.6
                                       Iron Point Light Rail Station     0.2       0.6       0.0       1.8        1.8       1.2       0.6            6.2
                                       Kaiser Permanente                 0.0       0.6       0.0       0.4        0.0       0.0       0.0            1.0
                                       FLC - Folsom Campus               0.0       0.0       1.4       0.6        0.0       1.2       0.2            3.4
                                       El Dorado Hills Park and Ride     0.0       0.0       0.4       0.2        0.4       1.4       0.0            2.4
                                       Cambridge Road Park and Ride      0.0       0.0       0.0       0.0        0.0       0.0       0.0            0.0
                                       Ponderosa Road Park and Ride      0.0       0.0       0.0       0.0        0.0       0.0       0.0            0.0
                                       EDC Fairgrounds Park and Ride     0.0        --        --        --         --       0.0       0.0            0.0
                                       Missouri Flat Transfer Center     0.0       0.0       0.0       0.0        0.0       0.0       0.0            0.0

                                       Source: EDCTA, 2007




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                           Page 75
Page 76
                                       TABLE 28: El Dorado County Transit Authority Cost Allocation Model,
                                       Fiscal Year 2006-2007
                                                                                                            Vehicle Service   Vehicle Service
                                                       Line Item                         Total                   Miles            Hours          Fixed

                                       Salaries and Wages                             $2,300,247               $172,364         $1,919,717      $208,166
                                       Employee Benefits                               $998,034                 $74,786          $832,929        $90,319
                                       Payroll taxes                                    $40,584                  $3,041           $33,870         $3,673




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                       Worker's Compensation Insurance                 $217,398                $16,290           $181,434       $19,674
                                       General Liability Insurance                     $186,921                                  $186,921
                                       Fuel                                            $490,521                $490,521
                                       Vehicle Maintenance                             $256,547                $256,547
                                       Professional Services                           $141,070                                                 $141,070
                                       Small Tools and Equipment                        $75,282                                                  $75,282
                                       Utilities                                        $40,869                                                  $40,869
                                       Special Department Expense                       $67,036                                                  $67,036
                                       Communications                                   $26,414                                  $19,811          $6,604
                                       Office Expense                                   $46,218                                                  $46,218
                                       Equipments Rents Leases                          $20,042                                                  $20,042
                                       Uniforms                                         $15,094                                  $15,094
                                       Household Supplies                               $12,018                                                 $12,018
                                       Membership and Publications                       $7,877                                                  $7,877
                                       Staff Development and Training                   $15,151                                                 $15,151
                                       Miscellaneous                                      $830                                                    $830
                                       Claims Expenses                                  $37,885                                                 $37,885

                                       Total Expenditures                             $4,996,038              $1,013,549        $3,189,776      $792,713

                                       Unit Quantities                                                        1,133,851           51,531           –
                                       Cost Per Unit                                                            $0.89             $61.90           –

                                       Source: EDCTA, FY 2006-07 Audit Report, Bartig, Basler & Ray, LLP.




   Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
This equation can be used to estimate the cost of any changes in service, such as the operation of
additional routes or changes in daily hours of operation. It will be used in subsequent tasks as part of this
study to evaluate the cost impacts of service alternatives.

System Revenues

The revenue sources required to support EDCTA’s administration, operations and maintenance are drawn
from a number of sources. As presented in Table 29, revenues have increased dramatically over the past
five years. Interest revenue and Local Transportation Funds (LTF) funds have had the largest average
annual increase, and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds varied the greatest over the period. In
FY EDCTA received both FTA Section 5311 (for urbanized areas) and 5307 (for rural areas) operating
grants as El Dorado Hills is included as part of the Sacramento Urbanized Area according to the Census.
In FY 2007/08 EDCTA will receive $99,200 in AB 2766 (air quality improvement grants) funding for
operation of the Apple Hill Shuttle and the Fair Shuttle. In general, total revenues increase significantly
over the period, equating to an annual average increase of 11.1 percent.

FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
To gain further insight into the efficiency and effectiveness of EDCTA services, it is useful to conduct an
analysis of ridership and operating data on a service category basis. Ridership and operating statistics for
FY 2006/07 were reviewed to identify average activity, marginal costs, allocated costs, allocated subsidy,
fare box ratio, and average fares. Table 30 presents this breakdown of financial performance indicators
for each type route/service.

Ridership

As presented in Figure 20 and Table 30, annual ridership by route/service ranges from a low of 147 on the
South County deviated fixed-route to a high of 125,972 on the Sacramento Commuter service. Other
relatively high ridership routes include the Placerville East/West service with 67,970 annual one-way
passenger-trips, followed by the Diamond Springs/Cameron Park, Folsom Lake College routes (37,401
annual one-way passenger-trips), the DAR service (33,320 annual one-way passenger-trips), and the
M.O.R.E. service (29,542 annual one-way passenger-trips). Total systemwide ridership for FY 2006/07
(excluding 37 passenger-trips from the Rancho Cordova service which only operated one month) was
360,622 one-way passenger-trips.

 TABLE 29: El Dorado County Transit Authority Revenues, Fiscal Years 2002/03
 through 2007/08
                                                                                                                          Average
                                                                                  Fiscal Year                              Annual
 Line Item                                              2002-03      2003-04        2004-05     2005-06      2006-07      Increase

 Passenger Fares                                         $807,548     $975,317     $1,025,052   $1,049,788   $1,105,246    8.2%
 Charter Service Revenue                                   $6,665      $10,502         $8,411       $6,288       $5,268    -5.7%
 Auxiliary Transportation Revenue                         $46,336      $26,146        $40,093      $55,195      $44,089    -1.2%
 Local Transportation Funds (LTF)                       $1,972,498   $1,711,057    $2,708,069   $3,206,381   $3,678,739    16.9%
 State Transit Assistance Funds (STA)                     $216,601     $208,758      $278,182     $319,722           $0    13.9%
 Other State Cash Grants                                        $0      $31,000       $33,000      $33,000      $38,000    5.2%
 Federal Transit Administration Grants                    $565,417     $204,931      $206,616      $74,646     $610,023    1.9%
 Interest Revenue                                          $49,642      $27,687       $46,947      $65,494    $105,298     20.7%

 Total Operating Revenue                                $3,664,707   $3,195,398    $4,346,370   $4,810,514   $5,586,663    11.1%

 Source: EDCTA, Fiscal Years 2002-03 through 2006-07.



Western El Dorado County                                                                           LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                                                 Page 77
Allocated Operating Costs

The systemwide operating cost in FY 2006/07 was $4,996,038. Allocating fixed costs by the proportion
of vehicle-hours of service, $1,608,692 in operating funds was required for the local route services,
$1,266,486 was required for Commuter services and $1,370,651 was required for the DAR service. The
operating cost by route and service is presented in Figure 21. Of the individual services, the DAR service
required the greatest amount of operating funds ($1,350,838), followed by the Sacramento Commuter
service ($847,418) and the Placerville East/West fixed-route service ($527,672).

Required Operating Subsidy

As presented in Table 30 and Figure 22, subtracting the systemwide farebox revenues of $1,105,339 from
total operating costs indicates that the total operating subsidy required was $3,890,669. The DAR service
required the greatest annual subsidy ($1,303,207), distantly followed by the combined Diamond
Springs/Cameron Park/Folsom Lake College routes ($458,702), and the Placerville East/West service
($455,756). Figure 23 depicts the proportion of EDCTA’s total operating subsidy that can be attributed to
each type of service. The local routes account for 35.6 percent of total operating subsidy, followed by
DAR at 33.5 percent.

Farebox Recovery Ratio

The financial efficiency of a system can be measured by the farebox recovery ratio, which is illustrated in
the table and compared by route/service category in Figure 24. The farebox recovery ratio is particularly
important as a measurement for meeting the mandated minimums required for state Transportation
Development Act funding. The systemwide farebox recovery ratio in FY 2006/07 was 22.12 percent. By
service category (Table 30), the commuter services boasted the highest farebox recovery ratio (46.79
percent), followed by the contracted social services (40.55 percent) and the local and rural route services
(12.05 percent). Farebox recovery ratio for the combined local and rural routes exceeded the mandatory
systemwide 10 percent farebox recovery ratio. However, when reviewed separately (Figure 24), the
Placerville Express, South County and Grizzly Flat routes are below 10 percent. The farebox recovery
ratio for the Diamond Springs/Cameron Park/Folsom Lake College route was 10.39 percent, an
improvement over the 8.27 percent farebox recovery ratio last year when the routes were operated with
one bus. The low farebox return ratio for the Placerville Express is partially associated with a relatively
low average fare per passenger-trip; this in turn may be due to a large number of free transfers from the
other local routes and monthly pass users. It should be noted that the Sacramento Commuter farebox
recovery ratio is relatively high in comparison with most other transit services in rural California, and
significantly helps to ensure that the overall systemwide ratio exceeds the state requirements.

Operating Cost per Passenger-Trip

Another measure of each service’s financial efficiency is provided by the operating cost per one-way
passenger-trip. The systemwide operating cost per one-way passenger-trip in FY 2006/07 was $13.85. As
shown in Table 30 and Figure 25, Special Event Services such as the Apple Hill Shuttle and the
Sacramento Commuter achieved the lowest cost per one-way passenger-trip ($3.64 and $6.67,
respectively) followed by the Holly Jolly Trolley ($7.65) and the Placerville East/West route ($8.16). The
Reverse Commuter and South County routes generated the highest operating cost per one-way passenger-
trip ($95.70 and $90.79, respectively). It should be noted that the Reverse Commuter route consists
almost entirely of bus trips that need to be operated as “deadhead” trips as part of the Sacramento
Commuter service (though the cost allocation procedure assigns the full cost of the scheduled runs to this
service). If this service were to be eliminated, most of the costs would still be incurred.


LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                Western El Dorado County
Page 78                                                                          2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                       TABLE 30: El Dorado County Transit Authority Operating Data and Performance Indicators - Local/Rural Routes and Special
                                       Event Services (Page 1/2)




Western El Dorado County
                                               Fiscal Year 2006-2007




2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                                                                            Local and Rural Routes                                                                         Special Event Services
                                                                                                               Springs,                                                           Local and
                                                                                                              Cameron                                                               Rural                                                     Special
                                                                              Placerville       Placerville   Park, FLC     Pollock                                South           Routes         Main Street     Apple Hill   Holly Jolly   Services
                                                                              East/ West         Express      Shuttle(1)     Pines               Grizzly Flat      County          Subtotal        Shuttle         Shuttle      Trolley      Subtotal

                                       Operating Data
                                         One-Way Passenger-Trips                67,970           14,251            37,401           20,711           596             147          141,076            2,184         10,035        1,578       13,797
                                         Total Operating Cost                  $554,875         $220,868          $511,888         $287,896        $19,819         $13,346       $1,608,692         $50,721        $36,541      $12,065      $99,327
                                         Farebox Revenues                      $99,119           $4,179           $53,186          $35,680         $1,516           $176          $193,856          $4,543            $0          $0         $4,543
                                         Subsidy Required                      $455,756         $216,689          $458,702         $252,216        $18,303         $13,170       $1,414,836         $46,178        $36,541      $12,065      $94,784
                                         Vehicle Service Hours                  6,243            2,445             5,548            2,875            199             133           17,443             602            405          142         1,149
                                         Vehicle Service Miles                  80,988           35,698            92,986           73,505          4,967           3,431         291,575            4,695          5,863        1,220       11,778

                                       Performance Indicators
                                         Average Fare                            $1.46            $0.29             $1.42            $1.72          $2.54          $1.20            $1.37            $2.08            --           --         $0.33
                                         Farebox Recovery Ratio                 17.86%            1.89%            10.39%           12.39%          7.65%          1.32%           12.05%            8.96%            --           --         4.57%
                                         Operating Cost Per Trip                 $8.16            $15.50           $13.69           $13.90          $33.25         $90.79          $11.40            $23.22         $3.64        $7.65        $7.20
                                         Subsidy Per Trip                        $6.71            $15.21           $12.26           $12.18          $30.71         $89.59          $10.03            $21.14         $3.64        $7.65        $6.87
                                         Trips Per VSH                           10.9               5.8              6.7              7.2             3.0            1.1             8.1               3.6          24.8         11.1          12.0
                                         Trips Per VSM                           0.84              0.40             0.40              0.28           0.12           0.04            0.48              0.47          1.71         1.29          1.17

                                       Note 1: As the Diamond Springs and Cameron Park Routes were operated by the same bus at the beginning of the Fiscal Year, all routes are combined for this table.
                                       Source: EDCTA Administrative Operations Reports, Fiscal Year 2006/2007.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                           Page 79
Page 80
                                       TABLE 30: El Dorado County Transit Authority Operating Data and Performance Indicators - Local/Rural Routes and Special Event
                                       Services (Page 2/2)
                                               Fiscal Year 2006-2007




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                                                                             Commuter Services                                               Contracted Social Services
                                                                                                                                           Subtotal                                                  Subtotal
                                                                               Sacto   Reverse     Iron Point               Rancho        Commuter            Senior Day                              Social                                       EDCTA System
                                                                                               (1)
                                                                             Commuter Commuter Connector                    Cordova        Services             Care                M.O.R.E.         Services          SAC-MED Dial-A-Ride            Total (2)


                                       Operating Data
                                         One-Way Passenger-Trips              125,972           767           6,305            37          133,081               9,086              29,542             38,628             757           33,320        360,659
                                         Total Operating Cost                 $840,410        $73,399        $351,301        $1,376       $1,266,486           $227,547            $372,900          $600,447           $50,435       $1,370,651    $4,996,038
                                         Farebox Revenues                     $576,584        $1,918         $14,035          $93          $592,630             $10,337            $233,133          $243,470            $3,396        $67,444      $1,105,339
                                         Subsidy Required                     $263,826        $71,481        $337,266        $1,283        $673,856            $217,210            $139,767          $356,977           $47,039       $1,303,207    $3,890,699
                                         Vehicle Service Hours                 8,052            678           3,427            12           12,169               2,389               3,857             6,246              482           14,042        51,531
                                         Vehicle Service Miles                244,014         23,494          96,712          502          364,722              48,011              83,698            131,709            14,749        319,318       1,133,851

                                       Performance Indicators
                                         Average Fare                           $4.58           $2.50         $2.23          $2.51           $4.45                $1.14              $7.89             $6.30             $4.49           $2.02         $3.06
                                         Farebox Recovery Ratio                68.61%          2.61%          4.00%          6.76%          46.79%               4.54%              62.52%            40.55%             6.73%           4.92%        22.12%
                                         Operating Cost Per Trip                $6.67          $95.70         $55.72         $37.19          $9.52               $25.04             $12.62            $15.54             $66.62          $41.14       $13.85
                                         Subsidy Per Trip                       $2.09          $93.20         $53.49         $34.68          $5.06               $23.91              $4.73             $9.24             $62.14          $39.11       $10.79
                                         Trips Per VSH                           15.6            1.1            1.8            3.1            10.9                 3.8                7.7               6.2                1.6             2.4          7.0
                                         Trips Per VSM                           0.52           0.03           0.07           0.07            0.36                0.19               0.35              0.29               0.05            0.10         0.32

                                       Note 1: Although the Reverse Commuter route is separated from the Sacto Commuter route to display marginal performance indicators, no additional costs are incurred by operating the Reverse route.
                                       Source: EDCTA Administrative Operations Reports, Fiscal Year 2006/2007.




   Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                                                                 FIGURE 20: El Dorado County Transit Authority
                                                                                                     Annual Ridership, Fiscal Year 2006-07

                                                                       Dial-A-Ride                                            33,320




Western El Dorado County
                                                                        SAC-MED            757




2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                                         M.O.R.E.                                          29,542

                                                                  Senior Day Care                   9,086

                                                              Iron Point Connector               6,305

                                                               Reverse Commuter            767

                                                           Sacramento Commuter                                                                                                               125,972

                                                                 Holly Jolly Trolley        1,578

                                                                 Apple Hill Shuttle                 10,035

                                                               Main Street Shuttle          2,184

                                                                     South County          147

                                                                       Grizzly Flat        596

                                                                     Pollock Pines                                20,711

                                       Diamond Springs, Cameron Park, FLC Shuttle                                                   37,401

                                                               Placerville Express                       14,251

                                                            Placerville East/ West                                                                     67,970

                                                                                       0                    20,000              40,000        60,000            80,000   100,000   120,000             140,000
                                                                                                                                             One-Way Passenger-Trips




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                           Page 81
Page 82
                                                                                                FIGURE 21: El Dorado County Transit Authority
                                                                                                  Annual Operating Cost, Fiscal Year 2006-07

                                                                       Dial-A-Ride                                                                                                              $1,370,651

                                                                        SAC-MED               $50,435

                                                                         M.O.R.E.                                         $372,900




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                                                  Senior Day Care                            $227,547

                                                              Iron Point Connector                                       $351,301

                                                               Reverse Commuter                 $73,399

                                                           Sacramento Commuter                                                                               $840,410

                                                                 Holly Jolly Trolley        $12,065

                                                                 Apple Hill Shuttle          $36,541

                                                               Main Street Shuttle             $50,721

                                                                     South County           $13,346

                                                                       Grizzly Flat         $19,819

                                                                     Pollock Pines                                $287,896

                                       Diamond Springs, Cameron Park, FLC Shuttle                                                    $511,888

                                                               Placerville Express                           $220,868

                                                            Placerville East/ West                                                      $554,875

                                                                                       $0              $200,000         $400,000      $600,000        $800,000     $1,000,000   $1,200,000   $1,400,000      $1,600,000
                                                                                                                                                Annual Operating Cost




   Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                                                                FIGURE 22: El Dorado County Transit Authority
                                                                                                Annual Operating Subsidy, Fiscal Year 2006-07

                                                                       Dial-A-Ride                                                                                                                   $1,303,207




Western El Dorado County
                                                                        SAC-MED               $47,039




2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                                         M.O.R.E.                       $139,767

                                                                  Senior Day Care                             $217,210

                                                              Iron Point Connector                                        $337,266

                                                               Reverse Commuter                 $71,481

                                                           Sacramento Commuter                                     $263,826

                                                                 Holly Jolly Trolley        $12,065

                                                                 Apple Hill Shuttle           $36,541

                                                               Main Street Shuttle            $46,178

                                                                     South County           $13,170

                                                                       Grizzly Flat         $18,303

                                                                     Pollock Pines                                 $252,216

                                       Diamond Springs, Cameron Park, FLC Shuttle                                                    $458,702

                                                               Placerville Express                            $216,689

                                                            Placerville East/ West                                                   $455,756

                                                                                       $0               $200,000         $400,000          $600,000        $800,000        $1,000,000   $1,200,000    $1,400,000
                                                                                                                                                Annual Operating Subsidy




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                           Page 83
Page 84
                                       FIGURE 23: Proportion of Annual El Dorado County Transit Authority
                                                              Operating Subsidy
                                                         Local
                                                         35.6%




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                                                                             Commuter
                                                                                               17.3%




                                             Other
                                             2.0%



                                                                                            Contract
                                                                                             9.2%


                                                                                      Special Event
                                                                                          2.4%
                                                      Dial-A-Ride
                                                         33.5%




   Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                                                            FIGURE 24: El Dorado County Transit Authority
                                                                                             Farebox Recovery Ratio, Fiscal Year 2006-07

                                                                       Dial-A-Ride             4.92%




Western El Dorado County
                                                                        SAC-MED                   6.73%




2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                                         M.O.R.E.              4.92%

                                                                  Senior Day Care                 6.73%

                                                              Iron Point Connector          4.00%

                                                               Reverse Commuter           2.61%

                                                           Sacramento Commuter                                                                                  68.61%

                                                                 Holly Jolly Trolley   0.00%

                                                                 Apple Hill Shuttle    0.00%

                                                               Main Street Shuttle                  8.96%

                                                                     South County       1.32%

                                                                       Grizzly Flat                7.65%

                                                                     Pollock Pines                         12.39%

                                       Diamond Springs, Cameron Park, FLC Shuttle                      10.39%

                                                               Placerville Express        1.89%

                                                            Placerville East/ West                                  17.86%

                                                                                  0.00%                         20.00%         40.00%               60.00%               80.00%   100.00%
                                                                                                                             Operating Farebox Recovery Ratio




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                           Page 85
Page 86
                                                                                           FIGURE 25: El Dorado County Transit Authority
                                                                                              Operating Cost/Trip, Fiscal Year 2006-07

                                                                       Dial-A-Ride                                                 $41.14

                                                                        SAC-MED                                                                       $66.62

                                                                         M.O.R.E.                                                  $41.14




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                                                  Senior Day Care                                                                     $66.62

                                                              Iron Point Connector                                                           $55.72

                                                               Reverse Commuter                                                                                              $95.70

                                                           Sacramento Commuter               $6.67

                                                                 Holly Jolly Trolley          $7.65

                                                                 Apple Hill Shuttle       $3.64

                                                               Main Street Shuttle                               $23.22

                                                                     South County                                                                                       $90.79

                                                                       Grizzly Flat                                       $33.25

                                                                     Pollock Pines                    $13.90

                                       Diamond Springs, Cameron Park, FLC Shuttle                     $13.69

                                                               Placerville Express                     $15.50

                                                            Placerville East/ West            $8.16

                                                                                  $0.00                 $20.00               $40.00          $60.00            $80.00        $100.00   $120.00
                                                                                                                             Operating Cost / One-way Passenger-Trip




   Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Operating Subsidy per Passenger-Trip

When fare revenue is subtracted from the total cost and divided by the number of one-way passenger-
trips, the subsidy required per one-way passenger-trip is calculated. This performance measure is
particularly important, as it directly compares the most significant public “input” (public subsidy funding)
with the most significant “output” (one-way passenger-trips). The system as a whole required a subsidy of
$10.79 per one-way passenger-trip. As indicated in Figure 26, the Sacramento Commuter service requires
only $2.09 in transit subsidy, followed by the Apple Hill Shuttle ($3.64) and the Placerville East/West
route at $6.71. At the other extreme, the Reverse Commuter route required $93.20 for each one-way
passenger-trip (fully allocating the cost of the scheduled trips to this service), followed by the South
County route ($89.59).

Passenger-Trips per Vehicle-Hour of Service

An important measure of service effectiveness is “productivity,” defined as the number of one-way
passenger-trips provided per vehicle service hour. As presented in the table, the system as a whole
achieved a productivity of 7 one-way passenger-trips per vehicle service hour. Figure 27 shows that the
Apple Hill Shuttle boasted the highest productivity (24.8), followed by the Sacramento Commuter route
(15.6). The South County route and the Reverse Commute service attained the lowest productivity figure
(1.1 one-way passenger-trips per vehicle service hour), followed by the SAC-MED and Senior Day Care
Service (1.6 each) and IPC service (1.8).

Another measure of service effectiveness is the number of one-way passenger-trips provided per vehicle
service mile. The systemwide average during the fiscal year was 0.32. By service category the Special
Event Services provided the greatest number of one-way passenger-trips per vehicle service mile (1.17),
followed by the local and rural routes (0.48) and the commuter services (0.37). See Figure 28 for details
on each route and service.

TRANSIT CAPITAL ASSETS
Transit Operations/Maintenance Facility

The EDCTA’s operations and maintenance facility is located at 6565 Commerce Way in Diamond
Springs. California State Proposition 116 and local transportation funds financed the acquisition of the
office building, land, tenant improvement and construction of the maintenance facility. These facilities
include a 4,999 square foot office building for the administrative and operations departments, as well as a
7,470 square foot maintenance facility. Employee parking at the operations and maintenance facility has
reached capacity and as a result there are very limited parking spaces available for members of the public
who visit the facility to purchase passes or attend meetings. Reflecting EDCTA operations, staff is on-site
at this facility seven days a week. All EDCTA’s staff is based in this facility, which includes
administrative offices, a transit dispatch center, driver’s check-in locker room, and employee breakroom.
The conference room is also utilized for transit driver classroom training.

The maintenance facility includes 3 maintenance bays, drive-through bus wash, parts supply room, a
mechanic’s breakroom, and the Senior Equipment Mechanic’s office. This facility includes 1 in-ground
bus lift and 1 portable lift. The fully-fenced bus parking lot is striped to accommodate up to 62 vehicles.
Fueling occurs off-site at Dawson Oil Company one-quarter mile away.




Western El Dorado County                                                     LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                           Page 87
Page 88
                                                                                             FIGURE 26: El Dorado County Transit Authority
                                                                                               Operating Subsidy/Trip, Fiscal Year 2006-07

                                                                       Dial-A-Ride                                                       $39.11

                                                                        SAC-MED                                                                              $62.14

                                                                         M.O.R.E.                                                        $39.11




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                                                  Senior Day Care                                                                            $62.14

                                                              Iron Point Connector                                                                  $53.49

                                                               Reverse Commuter                                                                                                     $93.20

                                                           Sacramento Commuter            $2.09

                                                                 Holly Jolly Trolley               $7.65

                                                                 Apple Hill Shuttle        $3.64

                                                               Main Street Shuttle                                     $21.14

                                                                     South County                                                                                                $89.59

                                                                       Grizzly Flat                                             $30.71

                                                                     Pollock Pines                        $12.18

                                       Diamond Springs, Cameron Park, FLC Shuttle                          $12.26

                                                               Placerville Express                            $15.21

                                                            Placerville East/ West                $6.71

                                                                                  $0.00                        $20.00                $40.00           $60.00           $80.00             $100.00   $120.00
                                                                                                                                    Operating Subsidy / One-Way Passenger Trip




   Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                                                             FIGURE 27: El Dorado County Transit Authority
                                                                                             Trips/Vehicle Service Hours, Fiscal Year 2006-07

                                                                       Dial-A-Ride                   2.4




Western El Dorado County
                                                                        SAC-MED                1.6




2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                                         M.O.R.E.                    2.4

                                                                  Senior Day Care              1.6

                                                              Iron Point Connector                 1.8

                                                               Reverse Commuter              1.1

                                                           Sacramento Commuter                                                                                       15.6

                                                                 Holly Jolly Trolley                                                                11.1

                                                                 Apple Hill Shuttle                                                                                                        24.8

                                                               Main Street Shuttle                             3.6

                                                                     South County            1.1

                                                                       Grizzly Flat                      3.0

                                                                     Pollock Pines                                                 7.2

                                       Diamond Springs, Cameron Park, FLC Shuttle                                                6.7

                                                               Placerville Express                                         5.8

                                                            Placerville East/ West                                                                 10.9

                                                                                       0.0                           5.0                    10.0              15.0             20.0       25.0    30.0
                                                                                                                                         One-Way Passenger Trips / Vehicle Service Hour




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                           Page 89
Page 90
                                                                                               FIGURE 28: El Dorado County Transit Authority
                                                                                               Trips/Vehicle Service Miles, Fiscal Year 2006-07

                                                                       Dial-A-Ride                 0.10

                                                                        SAC-MED              0.05

                                                                         M.O.R.E.                  0.10




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                                                  Senior Day Care            0.05

                                                              Iron Point Connector            0.07

                                                               Reverse Commuter             0.03

                                                           Sacramento Commuter                                                     0.52

                                                                 Holly Jolly Trolley                                                                                            1.29

                                                                 Apple Hill Shuttle                                                                                                            1.71

                                                               Main Street Shuttle                                              0.47

                                                                     South County           0.04

                                                                       Grizzly Flat                 0.12

                                                                     Pollock Pines                                0.28

                                       Diamond Springs, Cameron Park, FLC Shuttle                                        0.40

                                                               Placerville Express                                       0.40

                                                            Placerville East/ West                                                                    0.84

                                                                                     0.00                  0.25             0.50              0.75           1.00        1.25           1.50   1.75   2.00
                                                                                                                                       One-Way Passenger Trips / Vehicle Service Mile




   Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Bus Stops and Bus Shelters

Over the last several years, EDCTA has been focusing on improving passenger amenities, including the
placement of bus stop shelters. There are currently 20 bus stop locations with passenger shelters (and
benches). Additionally, bus benches (without shelters) provided at 14 bus stops throughout the EDCTA
system. Table 31 provides a listing of existing bus stops with shelters and benches (within El Dorado
County) and Figure 29 presents bench and shelter locations graphically.

Vehicle Fleet

As of October 2007, the EDCTA vehicle fleet consisted of 9 EDCTA non-revenue vehicles and 55
revenue vehicles. As presented in Table 32 below, the revenue vehicles range in capacity from 3 to 45
passengers; all of the revenue vehicles are equipped with wheelchair lifts and securement positions. The
average age of the revenue fleet is 4.76 years, and the average accumulated mileage is 165,126 per
revenue vehicle. A total of 26 revenue vehicles are eligible for replacement in 2007 and an additional 14
will be eligible for replacement by the end of the planning period.



TABLE 31: El Dorado County Transit Authority Shelter and Bench Locations

Bus Stops with Shelters

Big 5/Placerville Dr - Placerville                        Market Ct. - Cameron Park
Broadway and Schnell School Rd. - Placerville             Marshall Hospital/Marshall Way - Placerville
Cambridge Rd Park & Ride - Cameron Park                   Missouri Flat Transfer Cntr1 - Missouri Flat Rd.
Cameron Park Dr./Green Valley Rd. - Cameron Park          Placerville Library/Fair Ln. - Placerville
Coloma Ct. - Placerville                                  Placerville Station2/Mosquito Rd. - Placerville
Cottonwood Senior Apts/Clay St. - Placerville             Prospector Plaza/Missouri Flat Rd. - Placerville
El Dorado Hills Park & Ride1/Post St. - El Dorado Hills   Regal Theaters/Placerville Dr. - Placerville
Forni Rd./Lo Hi Way - Placerville                         Safeway Plaza/Missouri Flat Rd. - Placerville
Goldorado Cntr/Palmer Dr. - Cameron Park                  Safeway Plaza/Pony Express Trail - Pollock Pines
Home Depot/Placerville Dr. - Placerville                  Tunnel Street Apts - Placerville
                                                          Woodman Circle - Placerville

Bus Stops with Benches

Bldg. 1/Golden Cntr Ct. - Placerville                     Eskaton Lincoln Manor/Mother Lode Dr. - Placerville
Broadway/Carson Rd. - Placerville                         Fowler Way - Placerville
Big Lots (Fair Lane)                                      Panther Ln. - Diamond Springs
Carson Rd./Larsen Dr. - Camino                            Placerville Post Office/Sacramento St.
                                                                                 2
Cold Springs Dental/Cold Springs Rd. - Placerville        Placerville Senior Cntr /Spring St. - Placerville
Diamond Springs Mobile Home Park/China Garden Rd. Pleasant Valley Rd./Church St. - El Dorado
DMV/Cold Springs Rd. - Placerville                        Pleasant Valley Rd./Diamond Meadows - Diamond Springs
                                                                  2
                                                          Rite Aid /Broadway - Placerville
Note 1: Dual Shelters
Note 2: Covered bench/benches
Source: EDCTA




Western El Dorado County                                                          LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                                Page 91
    TABLE 32: El Dorado County Transit Authority Vehicle Inventory and Mileage
    Vehicle                Revenue/ Non-                                                            Capacity                     Replacement   Mileage
      No.        Backup      Revenue           Year    Make/Model       License   Weight   Length   AMB/WC       VIN      Lift      Year       10/12/07

    Revenue Vehicles
        9601       Yes            R            1993    GMC Trolley       29488    17,000    30      ***32/2     02284    Yes        2004        64926
        9503       No             R            1995    Bluebird Bus      19805    25,480    40       **45/2     64542    Yes        2005       249408
        9504       No             R            1995    Bluebird Bus      19806    25,480    40       **45/2     64543    Yes        2005       503934
        9505       No             R            1995    Bluebird Bus      19812    25,480    40       **45/2     64544    Yes        2005       400339
        9506       No             R            1995    Bluebird Bus      19826    25,480    40       **45/2     64545    Yes        2005       390043
        9507       No             R            1995    Bluebird Bus      19804    25,480    40       **45/2     64546    Yes        2005       431469
        9702       Yes            R            1997   Ford El Dorado    990139    10,080    25       *20/2      41871    Yes        2004       216415
        9701       No             R            1997   Ford El Dorado    990138    10,160    25       *20/2      41872    Yes        2004       221533
        9901       Yes            R            1999     Dodge Van       1001193   4,440     16        3/1       15513    Yes        2004       182626
        9902       Yes            R            1999     Dodge Van       1001194   4,460     16        3/1       15517    Yes        2004       183637
        9906       Yes            R            1999   Ford El Dorado    1001290   10,380    25       *20/2      84061    Yes        2004       293633
        9903       No             R            1999   Ford El Dorado    1001196   10,220    25       *20/2      36565    Yes        2004       259544
        9904       No             R            1999    Bluebird Bus     1040704   26,940    40      ***45/2     88546    Yes        2004       346047
        9905       No             R            1999   Ford El Dorado    1001289   10,140    25       *20/2      84060    Yes        2004       282381
        9907       No             R            1999   Ford El Dorado    1001288   10,360    25       *20/2      84062    Yes        2004       281495
        0101       No             R            2001      Thomas         1053744   36,220    40      ***45/2     00031    Yes        2011       286381
        0102       No             R            2001      Thomas         1053745   36,220    40      ***45/2     00032    Yes        2011       358064
        0103       No             R            2001   Ford El Dorado    1096110   10,160    25       *20/2      74150    Yes        2006       255905
        0104       No             R            2001   Ford El Dorado    1101407   10,300    25       *20/2      74148    Yes        2006       236394
        0105       No             R            2001   Ford El Dorado    1096112   10,280    25       *20/2      74151    Yes        2006       281827
        0106       No             R            2001   Ford El Dorado    1096111   10,680    25       *20/2      74147    Yes        2006       252360
        0107       No             R            2001   Ford El Dorado    1096113   10,240    25       *20/2      74149    Yes        2006       226676
        0201       No             R            2002   Ford El Dorado    1146446   10,360    25       *20/2      74139    Yes        2007       152952
        0202       No             R            2002   Ford El Dorado    1146445   10360     25       *20/2      74140    Yes        2007       212706
        0203       No             R            2002   Ford El Dorado    1146299   10360     25       *20/2      74138    Yes        2007       188173
        0204       No             R            2002      Thomas         1070147   36,220    40      ***45/2     19527    Yes        2012       262079
        0205       No             R            2002     Chevy Van       1124490   5,357     16         3/1      97969    Yes        2007       175882
        0206       No             R            2002     Chevy Van       1162552   5,357     16         3/1      03565    Yes        2007       180498
        0207       No             R            2002     Chevy Van       1162553   5,357     16         3/1      03580    Yes        2007       162392
        0303       Yes            R            2003   Ford El Dorado    1140642   10,400    25       *20/2      18234    Yes        2008       188381
        0304       Yes            R            2003   Ford El Dorado    1170641   10,320    25       *20/2      18235    Yes        2008       113111
        0305       No             R            2003    Ford Goshen      1130183   10,292    25       *20/2      18288    Yes        2008       128582
        0401       No             R            2004     Chevy Van       1184371   5,357     16        3/1       06409    Yes        2008       107833
        0502       No             R            2005     Chevy Van       1208636   4,320     16        3/1       70426    Yes        2009       118970
        0503       No             R            2005     Chevy Van       1208635   4,320     16        3/1       71335    Yes        2009        99761
        0504       No             R            2005     Chevy Van       1208787   4,320     16        3/1      149065    Yes        2009        99712
        0505       No             R            2005     Chevy Van       1213045   4,320     16        3/1       97276    Yes        2009        60422
        0610       Yes            R            2006    Bluebird Bus     1186545   25,320    35       **37/2    236595    Yes        2018        55635
        0601       No             R            2006    Bluebird Bus     1186550   26,800    40       **45/2     36592    Yes        2018        76858
        0602       No             R            2006    Bluebird Bus     1211371   26,800    40       **45/2     36589    Yes        2018        76405
        0603       No             R            2006    Bluebird Bus     1211287   26,800    40       **45/2     36593    Yes        2018        70795
        0604       No             R            2006    Bluebird Bus     1211372   26,800    40       **45/2     36590    Yes        2018        50717
        0605       No             R            2006    Bluebird Bus     1186559   26,800    40       **45/2    236591    Yes        2018        54969
        0606       No             R            2006    Bluebird Bus     1186547   25,320    35       **37/2    236598    Yes        2018        57782
        0607       No             R            2006    Bluebird Bus     1186548   25,320    35       **37/2    236596    Yes        2018        56853
        0608       No             R            2006    Bluebird Bus     1186546   25,320    35       **37/2    236594    Yes        2018        7911
        0609       No             R            2006    Bluebird Bus     1186544   25,320    35       **37/2    236597    Yes        2018        36740
        0611       No             R            2006     Chevy Van       1241555   4,320     16        3/1       34978    Yes        2010        33732
        0612       No             R            2006     Chevy Van       1241554   4,320     16        3/1       33689    Yes        2010        14959
        0703       No             R            2007   Chevy El Dorado   1258777   25,500     29       26/2     Unknown Yes          2014        5761
        0704       No             R            2007   Chevy El Dorado   1257876   25,500     29       26/2     Unknown Yes          2014        7270
        0705       No             R            2007   Chevy El Dorado   1257875   25,500     29       26/2     Unknown Yes          2014        9443
        0706       No             R            2007   Chevy El Dorado   1257902   25,500     29       26/2     Unknown Yes          2014        2143
        0707       No             R            2007   Chevy El Dorado   1257878   25,500     29       26/2     Unknown Yes          2014        5586
        0708       No             R            2007   Chevy El Dorado   1257968   25,500     29       26/2     Unknown Yes          2014        1928

    Non-Revenue Vehicles
        9509       Yes           NR            1995     Ford Escort      13346    4,000     14        5/0       90462     No        2004        62566
        0108       Yes           NR            2001     Ford Taurus     1076664   4,500     16        5/0       41353     No        2005        35004
        0109       Yes           NR            2001     Ford Taurus     1076663   4,500     16        5/0       41355     No        2005        33080
        0301       Yes           NR            2003     Ford Taurus     1152129   4,500     16        5/0       15750     No        2007        17221
        0302       Yes           NR            2003     Ford Taurus     1152128   4,500     16        5/0       15751     No        2007        24429
        0501       No            NR            2005     Honda Civic     1187457   3,620     15        5/0       02919     No        2009        18132
        M7055      No            NR            2005   Ford Main. Van    1187453   8,520     20         0        05884     No        2009        9471
        0701       No            NR            2007    Chevy Sedan      1122810   4,320     16        5/0      293813     No        2011        1526
        0702       No            NR            2007   Dodge Pick-Up     1273150   4,540     16        3/0      242930     No        2011        1221
    *    Less 2 seats per wheelchair station
    ** Less 4 seats per wheelchair station
    *** Less 6 seats per wheelchair station



LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                                                       Western El Dorado County
Page 92                                                                                                                 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Western El Dorado County        LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                             Page 93
FIGURE 30: El Dorado County Transit Authority Weekday Vehicle Utilization by Route & Time of Day
Route                                                                  5:00 AM        6:00 AM   7:00 AM   8:00 AM   9:00 AM   10:00 AM   11:00 AM   12:00 PM   1:00 PM   2:00 PM   3:00 PM   4:00 PM   5:00 PM      6:00 PM       7:00 PM
Placerville Shuttle 1
Placerville Shuttle 2
Placerville Express
Pollock Pines
Diamond Springs
Folsom Lake College
Cameron Park
Cameron Park 2
Sacramento Commuter 1
Sacramento Commuter 2
Sacramento Commuter 3
Sacramento Commuter 4
Sacramento Commuter 5
Sacramento Commuter 6
Sacramento Commuter 7
Sacramento Commuter 8
Sacramento Commuter 9
Sacramento Commuter 10
Sacramento Commuter 11
Sacramento Commuter 12
Iron Point Connector
Dial-A-Ride 1 (1)
Dial-A-Ride 2 (1)
Dial-A-Ride 3 (1)
Dial-A-Ride 4 (1)
Dial-A-Ride 5 (1)
Dial-A-Ride 6 (1)
Dial-A-Ride 7 (1)
Note 1: The Dial-A-Ride run sheets for Wednesday March 14, 2007 used for this analysis.
       = Reverse commute runs
   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                                                                                                                                        Western El Dorado County
   Page 94                                                                                                                                                                                                   2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Figure 30 above illustrates the number of vehicles in operation by-hour of day by-route. Not included in
Figure 30 are the cutaway vehicles designated for Social Service passengers only. As presented, during
the first and last hour of EDCTA’s operational day, only the Sacramento Commuter service and IPC
service is in operation. A maximum of 18 vehicles are in service at 4:15 PM. This occurs when both the
DAR vans and PM commuter routes are in operation.

EL DORADO COUNTY TRANSIT AUTHORITY TRANSIT PASSENGER
CHARACTERISTICS
Majic Consulting Group conducted onboard surveys on the local fixed-route service and commuter
service between October 15 and 20, 2004. DAR and SAC-MED were surveyed for two weeks beginning
on October 16, 2004, and telephone surveys were conducted between November 11 and 15, 2004. A total
of 488 surveys were collected for all four types of services. The following are key results of the survey.

    Demographics – Systemwide the majority of EDCTA transit riders are female. Commuter services
    attract riders between the ages of 21 and 64, the majority of DAR and SAC-MED passengers are over
    65 years-old and local fixed-routes had a larger percentage of younger and older riders. Local route
    respondents are overwhelmingly transit dependent.

    Travel Patterns – Over 90 percent of passengers on commuter services ride 14 or more times per
    month, generally for work purposes. Just over 50 percent of local route passengers ride the bus 4 or
    more times per week and the primary purpose of their trip is shopping. SAC-MED riders travel to
    medical appointments 3 to 11 times per year.

    Customer Satisfaction – Overall, SAC-MED had the highest level of customer satisfaction and the
    commuter service had the lowest. The three top-ranked attributes on all four services were: (1) Safety
    onboard the vehicles and stops, (2) courtesy and competency of drivers and (3) cleanliness of vehicles
    (on SAC-MED on-time performance and reliability ranked slightly higher). Low-ranked attributes
    included reservation procedures for DAR, trip duration and service beginning times for SAC-MED,
    trip duration and service end times for the local routes and cost and closeness of stops to home, and
    crowding onboard buses on commuter routes.

    Service Improvements (not already implemented) – Local route passengers suggested that
    additional bus stop locations in Pollock Pines/Camino be considered. Commuter service passengers
    identified the addition of new routes to ease crowding, increase frequency of service and provide
    more express service as potential improvements. DAR passengers suggested a review of the current
    reservation system to provide input regarding inefficiencies that may exist in the process and service
    into the evening hours.

OTHER TRANSIT PROVIDERS IN EL DORADO COUNTY
In addition to EDCTA, there are several other transportation providers serving Western El Dorado
County. Summary descriptions of the available transportation services are described below.

Senior Shuttle Program

Operated by the El Dorado County Senior Nutrition Services Department, this program assists adults 60
years and older with grocery shopping trips two to three times each week and monthly outings to Senior
Nutrition Dining Centers. There are 7 different Senior Dining Centers within Western El Dorado County:
Placerville, Diamond Springs, Pollock Pines, Greenwood, Somerset, Shingle Springs, and El Dorado


Western El Dorado County                                                    LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                          Page 95
Hills. Using volunteer drivers, 1 van is used to transport approximately 140 seniors each month. The
Senior Shuttle Program operates in Placerville, Diamonds Springs, and is beginning service in El Dorado
Hills. A fare of $ 2 per trip is charged for trips within the County and $5 is charged for out-of-county
trips.

Snowline Hospice Volunteer Services

Snowline Hospice is a non-profit, community-based organization dedicated to meeting the unique
physical, emotional, and spiritual needs of those who are nearing the end of their life. As part of the
program, volunteers often provide transportation for consumers to medical appointments.

Placerville Advocacy, Vocational, and Educational Services (PAVES)

PAVES provides training in areas of self-help skills, advocacy, community integration, and pre-
employment for adults with developmental disabilities. Volunteers provide transportation for consumers.

The Gates Recovery Foundation

The Gates Recovery Foundation offers detoxification services, substance abuse counseling, and recovery
programs to those individuals who suffer from alcohol or drug addition. Volunteer transportation is
provided.

United Cerebral Palsy (UCP) of Greater Sacramento

UCP provides adult day programs, transportation, in-home respite, independent living skills instruction,
toy lending library, equine assisted therapy and sports program for people with cerebral palsy and other
developmental disabilities. Specialized door-to-door transportation services are provided for consumers to
educational or vocational programs.

El Dorado County Human Services Department - Adult Protective Services (APS)

The program is supervised by the California Department of Social Services and administered locally by
the El Dorado County Department of Community Services. It provides assistance to elderly and
dependent adults who are functionally impaired, unable to meet their own needs or are victims of abuse,
neglect or exploitation. In addition to crisis intervention, other emergency services can be provided such
as food, transportation (vouchers for El Dorado Transit), shelter, and referrals.

Vision Coalition of El Dorado Hills and Teen Advisory Committee

The mission of the Vision Coalition is to promote activities to keep youth safe, healthy, and free from
drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. The Coalition organizes volunteer transportation. The Vision Coalition is
interested in partnering with other agencies such as the senior center, other non-profits, and human
services agencies to share transportation costs, and may also be a good recipient for retired transit
vehicles.

New West Haven (Assisted Living)

New West Haven is a residential care facility for the elderly offering residents with assistance with the
activities of daily living. The program includes arranging transportation to medical and dental
appointments.


LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                  Western El Dorado County
Page 96                                                                            2008 Short Range Transit Plan
50 Corridor Transportation Management Association (TMA)

The TMA promotes commuting alternatives by providing information for ridesharing and placement
assistance to employers, individuals, developers, and other interested organizations.

DST Output (Employee Vanpool)

DST Output is a major employer in El Dorado County with over 1,000 employees. Employee vanpool
services are provided by the company. Seven vans travel between Sacramento, Elk Grove, and the firm’s
West Coast operation’s office in the El Dorado Hills area. Approximately 76 employees participate in the
program.

Taxi and Limousine Services

There are several taxicab companies serving Western El Dorado County which operate 24-hour service.
Although their main service area is the greater Placerville area, they will take customers to destinations as
far as South Lake Tahoe and the Sacramento International Airport. Base fares range from $4 for the first
1.5 miles to $8 for the first 3.2 miles, with a cost of $2.50 for each additional mile or fraction thereof.
Fares to the Airport range between $55 and $105 or more depending on the pick-up location. In addition
to taxicab companies, there are several limousine companies that serve Western El Dorado County.

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
Amtrak Thruway

Amtrak Thruway feeder bus service is provided daily from the Placerville Station Transit Center to the
Sacramento Amtrak station (as part of a longer route between Carson City Nevada and Sacramento).

Amtrak Thruway buses depart the Placerville Station at 3:45 PM. Eastbound service from Sacramento
serves the Placerville Station at 11:00 AM, while westbound service is provided at 4:15 PM. Unique
among the various Amtrak Thruway routes, passengers can ride this service without the requirement to
connect to a rail trip.

Transportation to the Sacramento Airport

The closest major passenger airport to El Dorado County residents is Sacramento International Airport
(SMF). The distance from Placerville to the airport is approximately 55 miles or 50 minutes (without
traffic) if one travels by private vehicle. If a vehicle is not available or a traveler would like to use other
forms of transportation to get to the airport there are three expensive or time-consuming options:

    Gold Country Express – This private airport shuttle operates door-to-door service 24-hours a day. In
    addition to serving Placerville, Diamond Springs, Shingle Springs, and El Dorado Hills, the express
    serves communities as far east as Pollock Pines and as far north as Rescue. Residents of outlying
    communities such as Somerset would be required to make reservations. Reservations are accepted 24
    hours in advance, except during the holiday season when two weeks notice is required. The trip to the
    airport via shuttle is not significantly longer than a trip via private automobile (one hour). Gold
    Country Express fares are as follows: $60 one-way and $110 round-trip for the general public, $55
    one-way and $95 round-trip for seniors.




Western El Dorado County                                                        LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                              Page 97
    EDCTA Commuter Route and Yolobus – A trip to the Sacramento Airport on public transit is
    much cheaper but much lengthier. One option would be to catch one of EDCTA’s Commuter routes
    to downtown Sacramento and alight at L Street and 14th Street, walk one block to the Yolobus stop at
    L Street and 13th Street where service is available to the airport. The entire trip from Placerville
    Station to the airport would take about two hours if a quick and timely connection is made between
    EDCTA Commuter route and Yolobus. It is likely, however, that a one-hour layover in downtown
    Sacramento would be required, thereby extending the trip one more hour. In order to make this trip,
    the traveler would need to schedule a flight departing Sacramento no earlier than 8:30 AM, as
    commuter buses run begin service at 5:30 AM. Afternoon departures would work as well but would
    require a longer layover at the airport, as the EDCTA commuter service does not operate between
    10:00 AM and 2:00 PM. In order to have the best chance of catching a bus home from the airport, a
    traveler would need to schedule their arrival time at SMF before 8:00 AM or between 1:00 PM and
    4:00 PM. The one-way cost of this trip would be $5.50.

    IPC, Sac RT Light Rail, and Yolobus – The second public transit option is to travel via the EDCTA
    IPC service, transfer to the Sac RT Light Rail service at the Iron Point Station, ride Light Rail to the
    8th and K light rail station, walk several blocks to the L and 7th Yolobus stop, and ride the Yolobus
    route to the airport. The advantage of this option is that the IPC leaves El Dorado County on a more
    regular schedule (every two hours between 5:40 AM and 7:30 AM). As Sac RT Light Rail and
    Yolobus operate on half-hourly and hourly headways, there are fewer limitations on airport departure
    and arrival times. The disadvantage of this option is that total travel time from the El Dorado Hills
    Park-and-Ride is 2 hours and 40 minutes if quick and timely connections are made between the IPC,
    light rail, and Yolobus. The cost of this trip is about $6 for an adult.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                 Western El Dorado County
Page 98                                                                           2008 Short Range Transit 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 on transit services. A good starting point for this
analysis is to estimate the demand for transit and compare that with current services, thereby determining
the total unmet transit needs. In this chapter, the scope and characteristics of existing and future (Year
2015) transit demand within the study area will be analyzed. The analysis makes intensive use of the
demographic data and trends discussed previously.

Separate transit demand estimation techniques are available for rural and urban areas. Although El
Dorado County as a whole is considered a rural county, rather densely populated urban areas and clusters
exist within the County. The Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 3, Workbook for Estimating
Demand for Rural Passenger Transportation, 1995 (which is used to estimate rural transit demand in this
study) defines rural areas as those places outside of an urban area. In general, places meeting this
definition:

    Are outside a Metropolitan Statistical Area

    Have a population density of less than 1,000 persons per square mile

As can be seen in Table 2 and Figure 2, census tracts including the El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park
areas have a population of greater than 1,000 persons per square mile. Therefore transit demand is
estimated for these areas using urban demand estimation techniques. It should be noted that the definition
of rural verses urban in this document differs from the Census defined urbanized area boundaries where
only El Dorado Hills is considered to be part of the Sacramento urbanized area. An urban transit demand
analysis was considered appropriate for the densely populated census tracts in Cameron Park.

The demand for transit services in rural Western El Dorado County is considered in two components:
“program” and “non-program.” Program transit trips are those associated with a function of the number of
persons using a social service/human service agency type of program. Examples include sheltered
workshops for the developmentally disabled and drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs. Non-program
transit trips consist of all others, including general public trips for all purposes (work, school, shopping,
and recreational).

NON-PROGRAM DEMAND ESTIMATION
In general, there are three ways in which total non-program transit demand may be estimated: (1)
observed commuting usage, (2) analysis of survey data collected from passengers and residents in the
community, and (3) regression models that have been developed based upon observed usage in similar
communities.

All three of these estimation methods are reviewed and their demand estimates evaluated in this chapter.
For all methods, 2000 serves at the base year, with data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. Future
transit demand, as presented in Table 33, is estimated for year 2015 using population and employment
growth projections obtained from the 2006 El Dorado County Economic and Demographic Profile
(Center for Economic Development, CSU Chico).




Western El Dorado County                                                     LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                           Page 99
Page 100
                                       TABLE 33: Western El Dorado County Demographic Projections (2015) by Census Tract
                                                       Shaded Areas Represent Urban Areas
                                                                                                                                                                                              Elderly Persons (Aged   Mobility Limited   Persons Below Poverty   Zero-Vehicles Per
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      (2)
                                                                                                              Population                   Households                 Employed Persons             60 and Over)         Persons (1)            Status               Household
                                         Census
                                                                          Description                     2000          2015            2000           2015           2000           2015       2000        2015      2000       2015      2000       2015       2000        2015
                                          Tract


                                          306.01       Pilot Hill / Cool                                 4,607         6,504            1,674         2,363           2,193          3,044       799        1128      87         123        99         140       19          27
                                          306.02       Greenwood / Garden Valley                         5,786         8,169            2,149         3,034           2,434          3,378      1,118       1578      114        161        437        617       59          83




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                          306.03       North Central County                              2,787         3,935            1,108         1,564           1,231          1,709       560         791       48         68        202        285       14          20
                                          307.01       Zee Estates / Lakeridge Oaks                      5,442         7,683            1,783         2,517           2,587          3,590       515         727       11         16         91        128        0           0
                                          307.02       Hidden Valley / Crescent Ridge Village            5,766         8,141            1,938         2,736           2,784          3,864       716        1011       94        133         36         51        0           0
                                          307.03       Greenvalley Acres / Oak Ridge Village             7,059         9,966            2,248         3,174           3,430          4,760       694         980       54         76         89        126       16          23
                                          307.04       Clarksville / Latrobe                             1,905         2,690             666           940             972           1,349       261         368       20         28        116        164        6           8
                                          308.01       Deer Valley / Rescue                              3,730         5,266            1,275         1,800           1,781          2,472       543         767      163        230         37         52       33          47
                                          308.03       East Cameron Park                                 5,795         8,182            2,176         3,072           2,783          3,863      1,114       1573      166        234        255        360       109         154
                                          308.04       Shingle Springs / Frenchtown                      5,758         8,129            2,051         2,896           2,714          3,767       980        1384      130        184        195        275        21          30
                                          308.05       West Cameron Park                                 9,173         12,951           3,217         4,542           4,579          6,355      1,075       1518      236        333        443        625        29          41
                                          308.06       Central Cameron Park                              5,199          7,340           1,988         2,807           2,551          3,541       915        1292       45         64        253        357        74         104
                                          309.01       Coloma / Lotus Road Area                          2,709          3,825           1,002         1,415           1,337          1,856       474         669        9         13        151        213        13          18
                                          309.02       N. Greenstone / Missouri Flat Area                4,367          6,166           1,555         2,195           2,084          2,892       808        1141       90        127        351        496        30          42
                                          310.00       Northwest Placerville                             5,750          8,118           2,367         3,342           2,520          3,498      1,231       1738      256        361        254        359       194         274
                                          311.00       North Placerville                                 5,084          7,178           2,135         3,014           2,297          3,188      1,064       1502       18         25        459        648       189         266
                                          312.00       South Placerville                                 4,824          6,811           1,832         2,586           2,153          2,988      1,093       1543      175        247        590        833        76         107
                                          313.01       Smith Flat / Camino                               3,403          4,804           1,358         1,917           1,528          2,121       825        1165       76        107        315        445        51          72
                                          313.02       N. Pollock Pines / Cedar Grove                    4,644          6,557           1,923         2,715           1,874          2,601      1,045       1475      133        188        435        614       146         206
                                          314.02       Somerset / Mt. Aukum                              4,847          6,843           1,863         2,630           2,171          3,013       964        1361      181        256        314        443        19          27
                                          314.03       Southeast County                                    94            133              49            69              58             80         26          37        0          0          0          0         6           8
                                          314.04       Newton / Old Fort Jim                             2,241          3,164            803          1,134           1,164          1,616       384         542       64         90        127        179        50          71
                                          314.05       Rancho Del Sol / Gold Ridge                       2,438          3,442            895          1,264           1,130          1,568       480         678       47         66        159        224        24          34
                                          314.06       Fresh Pond / Pleasant Valley                      5,298          7,480           2,004         2,829           2,243          3,113      1,057       1492      121        171        386        545        41          58
                                          315.02       South Missouri Flat Area                          5,643          7,967           2,316         3,270           2,219          3,080      1,551       2190      167        236        520        734       149         210
                                          315.03       Kingsville / Nashville                            2,635          3,720           1,013         1,430           1,156          1,604       545         769       83        117        186        263        37          52
                                          315.04       Deer Park Area                                    5,273          7,445           2,066         2,917           2,156          2,992      1,222       1725      130        184        348        491       112         158

                                                       Western El Dorado County Totals                  122,257        172,607         45,454         64,174         56,129          77,901     22,059     31,144     2,718     3,837      6,848      9,668      1,517       2,139

                                       Note 1: Mobility Limited includes persons aged 16 to 64.
                                       Note 2: Poverty Status includes persons aged 0 to 64.

                                       Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000; 2006 El Dorado County Economic and Demographic Profile, Center for Economic Development CSU Chico.




   Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
  Observed Commuting Usage

  The first methodology, observed commuting usage, is based on nationally-recognized trip-making
  averages as they relate to various demographic factors, such as the number of employed persons and the
  total population. Two of these types of estimates are presented below.

  Employee Transit Use for Urban Core

  Employee transit use is important to EDCTA. Sacramento Area Council of Governments onboard surveys
  indicated that approximately 30 to 40 percent of EDCTA passengers used the bus for work purposes in
  2006. Within the category of “observed commuting usage methods,” one method is to use the average
  percentage of employees who commute by transit as an indicator of the demand for work commute trips.
  Generally, national averages for similar communities are used for this method and fall in a range between
  1.8 to 3.5 percent of a community’s total number of employees. Each employee is assumed to make two
  trips for each work day, or approximately 250 days per year.

  In 2000, 18,714 employed persons who worked outside the home resided in the urbanized core area of
  Western El Dorado County. Using this figure, a total study area demand of 187,140 annual one-way
  transit trips is estimated, as follows:

             18,714 x 2 x 250 = 9,357,000 total annual one-way person trips (all modes)
             9,357,000 x 2.0 percent = 187,140 annual one-way transit trips

  Table 34 below presents these demand calculations for the urban core area for 2000 and 2015. As
  presented, the combined demand for the study area for the year 2015 is 259,730 one-way transit work
  trips.



TABLE 34: Western El Dorado County Employee Transit Use Method of Urban Demand Estimation
                                                                                                                           Demand Density (3)

                                                                             (1)                                    (2)               % of 2010
  Census                                                        Employment             Estimated Transit Demand
                                                                                                                                      Regional
   Area     Area Description                                  2000         2015            2000            2015            2015       Demand

El Dorado Hills
   307.01   Zee Estates / Lakeridge Oaks                      2,587        3,590          25,870          35,900           6,957       13.8%
   307.02   Hidden Valley / Crescent Ridge Village            2,784        3,864          27,840          38,640           7,983       14.9%
   307.03   Greenvalley Acres / Oak Ridge Village             3,430        4,760          34,300          47,600           4,024       18.3%

Cameron Park
  308.03  East Cameron Park                                   2,783        3,863          27,830          38,630          4,110        14.9%
  308.05  West Cameron Park                                   4,579        6,355          45,790          63,550          15,808       24.5%
  308.06  Central Cameron Park                                2,551        3,541          25,510          35,410          19,456       13.6%

            Urban Core Total                                 18,714       25,973         187,140          259,730         58,339       100.0%



Note 1: 2000 data based on 2000 U.S. Census population (employed persons) and 2015 based on LSC estimates using 2006 El Dorado County Economic and
Demographic Profile growth projections.
Note 2: Demand estimates assume that the percentage of employees using transit is 2.0 percent in western El Dorado County.
Note 3: Demand density is measured in terms of one-way passenger-trips per square mile per year.
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.




  Western El Dorado County                                                                          LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
  2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                                               Page 101
Long-Range Commuter Growth

Although the planning horizon for this plan is five years, it is worthwhile noting the potential for
commuter transit demand in the long term. The El Dorado Hills Business Park is planned to host over
12,000 workers in the next 20 years. This represents an increase of approximately 7,000 workers over
employment levels in 2005. Additionally, SACOG projects that employment in El Dorado Hills and
Cameron Park will increase by 36,000 employees from 2005 to 2032.

Modal Split Countywide

Within the category of “observed commuting usage methods,” the second demand estimation method
relies on the national percentage of all trips (as opposed to employee work trips) made by public transit as
a mode. National statistics indicate that between 0.5 percent and 1.2 percent of all trips are made on
public transit where it is available, and each person makes an average of 3.5 trips (private
vehicle/bike/bus) per day.

Considering the existing service coverage in the study area, the optimal modal split within the urbanized
core area (El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park areas) is estimated to be 1.0 percent, and 0.5 percent for the
remainder of Western El Dorado County, if a very high level of transit service could be provided. Using
these figures, demand for the urban core area can be estimated at 490,990 annual one-way transit trips in
2000, as presented:

         38,434 persons x 365 days/year x 3.5 trips/day = 49,099,435 total trips
         49,099,435 trips x 1.0 percent = 490,990 annual one-way transit trip per year

Similarly, the rural demand outside the urban core for 2000 is estimated at 535,400 annual one-way
passenger-trips. The combined regional total for 2000 is 1,026,390 annual one-way passenger-trips. Table
35 presents estimates for the urban core and rural areas by census tract. Estimates are also provided in this
table for 2015. Based on this method and using the region’s projected 2015 population of 172,607
persons, the region’s demand will be approximately 1,449,140 annual one-way transit trips per year, if a
very high level of service could be provided. Of the total 2015 demand, 47.8 percent will be within the
urban core area, and 52.2 percent will be in the remainder of the study area.

Elderly and Disabled Transit Demand – Urban Core

The most thorough analysis of transit demand among the elderly and disabled segments of the urban
population was developed by Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company, as described in Description of the
Transportation Handicapped Population (1975). This methodology derives the elderly and disabled transit
demand as:

    E and D Trips per Year = Elderly and Disabled Population x
                               [(25 percent x 5.2 trips per week) +
                                       (5 percent x 1.4 trips per week)] x
                                                35 percent by transit mode x 51 weeks per year

Applying the total urban area 2000 population estimates of 5,029 elderly and 606 persons with a mobility
limitation disability, this equation yields a total estimate of 137,800 urban area elderly/disabled transit
trips per year.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                 Western El Dorado County
Page 102                                                                          2008 Short Range Transit Plan
TABLE 35: Western El Dorado County Modal Split Method of Demand Estimation

                                                                                                                        Demand Density (3)

                                                                                                                                      % of 2015
                                                   Population (1)             Estimated Transit Demand (2)                            Regional
Census Tract                                      2000      2015                  2000           2015                     2015        Demand

Urban Core

  El Dorado Hills Census Tracts                  18,267         25,790            233,360            329,470             15,090         22.7%
  Cameron Park Census Tracts                     20,167         28,473            257,630            363,740             23,870         25.1%

                  Urban Core Subtotal            38,434         54,263            490,990            693,210             38,960         47.8%


Rural Area

  Pilot Hill / Cool                              4,607           6,504            29,430             41,550               652            2.9%
  Greenwood / Garden Valley                      5,786           8,169            36,960             52,180               378            3.6%
  North Central County                           2,787           3,935            17,800             25,130               52             1.7%
  Clarksville / Latrobe                          1,905           2,690            12,170             17,180               310            1.2%
  Deer Valley / Rescue                           3,730           5,266            23,830             33,640              1,410           2.3%
  Shingle Springs / Frenchtown                   5,758           8,129            36,780             51,930              1,940           3.6%
  Coloma / Lotus Road Area                       2,709           3,825            17,300             24,430               970            1.7%
  N. Greenstone / Missouri Flat Area             4,367           6,166            27,890             39,380              2,020           2.7%
  Northwest Placerville                          5,750           8,118            36,730             51,850              4,990           3.6%
  North Placerville                              5,084           7,178            32,470             45,850              3,220           3.2%
  South Placerville                              4,824           6,811            30,810             43,500              5,380           3.0%
  Smith Flat / Camino                            3,403           4,804            21,740             30,690              1,710           2.1%
  N. Pollock Pines / Cedar Grove                 4,644           6,557            29,660             41,880              3,280           2.9%
  Somerset / Mt. Aukum                           4,847           6,843            30,960             43,710               140            3.0%
  Southeast County                                 94             133               600                850                 0             0.1%
  Newton / Old Fort Jim                          2,241           3,164            14,310             20,210              1,280           1.4%
  Rancho Del Sol / Gold Ridge                    2,438           3,442            15,570             21,990              2,010           1.5%
  Fresh Pond / Pleasant Valley                   5,298           7,480            33,840             47,780              1,590           3.3%
  South Missouri Flat Area                       5,643           7,967            36,040             50,890              4,970          3.5%
  Kingsville / Nashville                         2,635           3,720            16,830             23,760               620           1.6%
  Deer Park Area                                 5,273           7,445            33,680             47,550              2,080          3.3%
                 Rural Area Subtotal             83,823         118,345           535,400            755,930             39,002         52.2%

  Study Area Total                               122,257        172,607          1,026,390          1,449,140            77,962        100.0%

Note 1: Data based on LSC estimates using El Dorado County Economic and Demographic Profile, Center for Economic Development CSU Chico
growth projections.
Note 2: Demand estimates assume that the percentage of all trips made using transit is 1.0 percent in the urbanized area of western El Dorado
County and 0.5 percent in the rural areas.
Note 3: Demand density is measured in terms of one-way passenger-trips per square mile per year.
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.




 Western El Dorado County                                                                             LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
 2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                                                  Page 103
NON-PROGRAM RURAL DEMAND ESTIMATION
While the methods presented above are capable of providing estimates regionally, improved methods
have been devised in recent years for rural areas. An important source of information regarding demand
generated by programs is the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Project B-3: Rural Transit
Demand Estimation Techniques. This study, conducted in 1996 by SG Associates and LSC
Transportation Consultants, 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 services 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 service miles of annual transit service per square mile
of service area. A review of the transit database presented in the TCRP documents indicates 6,500 vehicle
service miles per square mile per year is the upper-bound “density” of similar services provided in this
country. This assessment of demand for the rural to urbanizing areas, therefore, could be considered to be
the maximum potential ridership if a high level of rural service were made available throughout the
region.

For the rural areas of Western El Dorado County, a reasonable maximum level of service would be to
serve every portion of the County with four transit trips of transit service daily, Monday through Friday.
This equates to approximately 1,000 vehicle-miles of transit service per square mile per year. The study
area input data for this model are presented in Table 36, including land area and population data.
Applying this feasible maximum service density to the population of the rural areas outside the Western
El Dorado County urban core yields the 2000 estimated transit demand for the general population, as well
as the elderly and mobility limited populations, as presented in Table 37. Table 38 presents the 2015 input
data for the rural areas, with Table 39 providing the corresponding 2015 demand estimates. The estimated
rural demand for 2000 is 78,390 annual one-way passenger-trips increasing to 110,630 annual one-way
passenger-trips in 2015. Of the 2015 estimate, 81,190 are trips by elderly persons, 8,750 are trips by
disabled persons, and the remaining 20,690 are trips by general public riders. The census tract with the
greatest demand throughout the planning period is in the South Placerville area.

SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAM-RELATED TRANSIT DEMAND
In areas such as Western El Dorado 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 it is specifically generated by
each program.

Annual program demand was estimated by using the TCRP Project B-3: Rural Transit Demand
Estimation Techniques, based upon the number of participants in each program. As presented in Table 40,
total countywide demand of annual program trips is 881,400. This figure largely consists of potential
demand for travel to and from group homes, mental health services, Head Start, job training and
developmental services programs, and many of these trips are likely already being directly provided by



LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                  Western El Dorado County
Page 104                                                                           2008 Short Range Transit Plan
   TABLE 36: Transit Cooperative Research Program Method of Rural Demand
   Estimation – 2000 Data Inputs
       Western El Dorado County (Not Including El Dorado Hills or Cameron Park)

                                                                              Total
                                                     Land        Total       Number           Mobility-      Below-
   Census                                            Area      Population   of Elderly        Limited        Poverty
   Tract       Area Description                    (sq. mi.)   (Persons)     Age 60+         Population     Population


     306.01    Pilot Hill / Cool                     63.6        4,607         799                87             99
     306.02    Greenwood / Garden Valley            137.8        5,786        1,118              114            437
     306.03    North Central County                 474.7        2,787         560                48            202
     307.04    Clarksville / Latrobe                 55.3        1,905         261                20            116
     308.01    Deer Valley / Rescue                  23.9        3,730         543               163             37
     308.04    Shingle Springs / Frenchtown          26.7        5,758         980               130            195
     309.01    Coloma / Lotus Road Area              25.1        2,709         474                9             151
     309.02    N. Greenstone / Missouri Flat Are     19.5        4,367         808                90            351
       310     Northwest Placerville                 10.4        5,750        1,231              256            254
       311     North Placerville                     14.2        5,084        1,064               18            459
       312     South Placerville                     8.1         4,824        1,093              175            590
     313.01    Smith Flat / Camino                   17.9        3,403         825                76            315
     313.02    N. Pollock Pines / Cedar Grove        12.8        4,644        1,045              133            435
     314.02    Somerset / Mt. Aukum                 305.7        4,847         964               181            314
     314.03    Southeast County                     190.6          94           26                0              0
     314.04    Newtown / Old Fort Jim                15.8        2,241         384                64            127
     314.05    Rancho Del Sol / Gold Ridge           10.9        2,438         480                47            159
     314.06    Fresh Pond / Pleasant Valley          30.0        5,298        1,057              121            386
     315.02    South Missouri Flat Area              10.2        5,643        1,551              167            520
     315.03    Kingsville / Nashville                38.3        2,635         545                83            186
     315.04    Deer Park Area                        22.8        5,273        1,222              130            348

                    Rural Study Area Total         1,514.4       83,823      17,030             2,112          5,681

   Source: US Census 2000.




Western El Dorado County                                                                 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                                      Page 105
Page 106
                                       TABLE 37: Transit Cooperative Research Program Method of Rural Demand Estimation – 2000 Estimates
                                           Western El Dorado County (Not Including El Dorado Hills or Cameron Park)

                                                                                                   Estimated Annual Passenger-Trip Demand                                Daily Demand
                                                                                                                  Elderly +                          Estimated Daily         Density
                                       Census                                                         Mobility    Mobility    General                Transit Demand      (Trips per Sq.)
                                        Tract       Area Description                     Elderly      Limited     Limited      Public       Total    #      Regional %   Miles per Day)




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                         306.01     Pilot Hill / Cool                    2,700          260        2,960        260         3,220    13       4.1%            0.2
                                         306.02     Greenwood / Garden Valley            3,780          330        4,110       1,130        5,240    21       6.7%            0.1
                                         306.03     North Central County                 1,890          140        2,030        520         2,550    10       3.3%            0.0
                                         307.04     Clarksville / Latrobe                 880            60         940         300         1,240     5       1.6%            0.1
                                         308.01     Deer Valley / Rescue                 1,830          480        2,310        100         2,410     9       3.1%            0.4
                                         308.04     Shingle Springs / Frenchtown         3,310          380        3,690        500         4,190    16       5.3%            0.6
                                         309.01     Coloma / Lotus Road Area             1,600           30        1,630        390         2,020     8       2.6%            0.0
                                         309.02     N. Greenstone / Missouri Flat Area   2,730          260        2,990        910         3,900    15       5.0%            0.8
                                           310      Northwest Placerville                4,160          750        4,910        660         5,570    22       7.1%            2.1
                                           311      North Placerville                    3,590           50        3,640       1,180        4,820    19       6.1%            1.3
                                           312      South Placerville                    3,690          510        4,200       1,520        5,720    22       7.3%            2.8
                                         313.01     Smith Flat / Camino                  2,790          220        3,010        810         3,820    15       4.9%            0.8
                                         313.02     N. Pollock Pines / Cedar Grove       3,530          390        3,920       1,120        5,040    20       6.4%            1.6
                                         314.02     Somerset / Mt. Aukum                 3,260          530        3,790        810         4,600    18       5.9%            0.1
                                         314.03     Southeast County                      90             0          90           0           90       0       0.1%            0.0
                                         314.04     Newtown / Old Fort Jim               1,300          190        1,490        330         1,820     7       2.3%            0.5
                                         314.05     Rancho Del Sol / Gold Ridge          1,620          140        1,760        410         2,170     9       2.8%            0.8
                                         314.06     Fresh Pond / Pleasant Valley         3,570          360        3,930       1,000        4,930    19       6.3%            0.6
                                         315.02     South Missouri Flat Area             5,240          490        5,730       1,340        7,070    28       9.0%            2.7
                                         315.03     Kingsville / Nashville               1,840          240        2,080        480         2,560    10       3.3%            0.3
                                         315.04     Deer Park Area                       4,130          380        4,510        900         5,410    21       6.9%            0.9

                                                          Rural Study Area Total         57,530        6,190       63,720      14,670       78,390   307     100.0%           0.2

                                       Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.




   Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                       TABLE 38: Transit Cooperative Research Program Method of Rural Demand
                                       Estimation – 2015 Data Inputs
                                           Western El Dorado County (Not Including El Dorado Hills or Cameron Park)

                                                                                                                                        Total




Western El Dorado County
                                                                                                    Land            Total             Number           Mobility-      Below-




2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                         Census                                                     Area          Population         of Elderly        Limited        Poverty
                                          Tract                Area Description                   (sq. mi.)       (Persons)           Age 60+         Population     Population

                                            306.01   Pilot Hill / Cool                               63.6             6,504             1,128                123        140
                                            306.02   Greenwood / Garden Valley                      137.8             8,169             1,578                161        617
                                            306.03   North Central County                           474.7             3,935              791                  68        285
                                            307.04   Clarksville / Latrobe                          55.3              2,690              368                  28        164
                                            308.01   Deer Valley / Rescue                           23.9              5,266              767                 230         52
                                            308.04   Shingle Springs / Frenchtown                   26.7              8,129             1,384                184        275
                                            309.01   Coloma / Lotus Road Area                       25.1              3,825              669                  13        213
                                            309.02   N. Greenstone / Missouri Flat Area              19.5             6,166             1,141                127        496
                                               310   Northwest Placerville                          10.4              8,118             1,738                361        359
                                               311   North Placerville                              14.2              7,178             1,502                 25        648
                                               312   South Placerville                               8.1              6,811             1,543                247        833
                                            313.01   Smith Flat / Camino                             17.9             4,804             1,165                107        445
                                            313.02   N. Pollock Pines / Cedar Grove                 12.8              6,557             1,475                188        614
                                            314.02   Somerset / Mt. Aukum                           305.7             6,843             1,361                256        443
                                            314.03   Southeast County                               190.6              133                37                   0          0
                                            314.04   Newtown / Old Fort Jim                          15.8             3,164              542                  90        179
                                            314.05   Rancho Del Sol / Gold Ridge                    10.9              3,442              678                  66        224
                                            314.06   Fresh Pond / Pleasant Valley                   30.0              7,480             1,492                171        545
                                            315.02   South Missouri Flat Area                       10.2              7,967             2,190                236        734
                                            315.03   Kingsville / Nashville                         38.3              3,720              769                 117        263
                                            315.04   Deer Park Area                                  22.8             7,445             1,725                184        491

                                                            Rural Study Area Total                 1,514.4          118,345            24,044                2,982     8,021

                                       Source: 2006 El Dorado County Economic and Demographic Profile, Center for Economic Development CSU Chico and LSC .




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                          Page 107
TABLE 39: Transit Cooperative Research Program Method of Rural Demand Estimation – 2015 Estimates
    Western El Dorado County (Not Including El Dorado Hills or Cameron Park)

                                                             Estimated Annual Passenger-Trip Demand                                    Daily Demand
                                                                           Elderly +                               Estimated Daily         Density
  Census                                                        Mobility   Mobility       General                  Transit Demand      (Trips per Sq.)
   Tract                Area Description           Elderly      Limited    Limited         Public      Total        #     Regional %   Miles per Day)

      306.01   Pilot Hill / Cool                   3,810          360       4,170           360        4,530       17.8     4.1%            0.3
      306.02   Greenwood / Garden Valley           5,330          470       5,800          1,590       7,390       29.0     6.7%            0.2
      306.03   North Central County                2,670          200       2,870           740        3,610       14.2     3.3%            0.0
      307.04   Clarksville / Latrobe               1,240          80        1,320           420        1,740        6.8     1.6%            0.1
      308.01   Deer Valley / Rescue                2,590          680       3,270           130        3,400       13.3     3.1%            0.6
      308.04   Shingle Springs / Frenchtown        4,670          540       5,210           710        5,920       23.2     5.4%            0.9
      309.01   Coloma / Lotus Road Area            2,260          40        2,300           550        2,850       11.2     2.6%            0.4
      309.02   N. Greenstone / Missouri Flat Are   3,850          370       4,220          1,280       5,500       21.6     5.0%            1.1
        310    Northwest Placerville               5,870         1,060      6,930           930        7,860       30.8     7.1%            3.0
        311    North Placerville                   5,070          70        5,140          1,670       6,810       26.7     6.2%            1.9
        312    South Placerville                   5,210          730       5,940          2,150       8,090       31.7     7.3%            3.9
      313.01   Smith Flat / Camino                 3,930          320       4,250          1,150       5,400       21.2     4.9%            1.2
      313.02   N. Pollock Pines / Cedar Grove      4,980          550       5,530          1,580       7,110       27.9     6.4%            2.2
      314.02   Somerset / Mt. Aukum                4,600          750       5,350          1,140       6,490       25.5     5.9%            0.1
      314.03   Southeast County                     120            0         120             0          120         0.5     0.1%            0.0
      314.04   Newtown / Old Fort Jim              1,830          270       2,100           460        2,560       10.0     2.3%            0.6
      314.05   Rancho Del Sol / Gold Ridge         2,290          190       2,480           580        3,060       12.0     2.8%            1.1
      314.06   Fresh Pond / Pleasant Valley        5,040          500       5,540          1,410       6,950       27.3     6.3%            0.9
      315.02   South Missouri Flat Area            7,400          690       8,090          1,890       9,980       39.1     9.0%            3.8
      315.03   Kingsville / Nashville              2,600          340       2,940           680        3,620       14.2     3.3%            0.4
      315.04   Deer Park Area                      5,830          540       6,370          1,270       7,640       30.0     6.9%            1.3

                     Rural Study Area Total        81,190        8,750      89,940        20,690      110,630     433.8     100.0%          0.3

Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.




TABLE 40: El Dorado County Program-Related Transit Demand
                                                                                        Feasible
                                                                                        Number      Annual Feasible Number of Rides
Program Type                                   Criteria                                Participants    Urban         Rural        Total

Development Services: Adult                    Actual # Participants                      36            6,500              7,290        13,790
Group Home                                     Actual # Participants                      146           21,810            24,440        46,250
Headstart                                      Actual # Participants                      370           45,890            51,420        97,310
Headstart: Homebase                            Actual # Participants                      90            1,300              1,450         2,750
Headstart: Other                               Actual # Participants                      218            190                220           410
Job Training                                   Actual # Participants                      400           25,840            28,960        54,800
Mental Health Services                         Actual # Participants                     1,700         278,170            311,730       589,900
Nursing Home/ Senior Services                  Actual # Participants                      540           3,100              3,480         6,580
Senior Nutrition                               Actual # Participants                      240           28,070            31,450        59,520
Sheltered Workshop                             Actual # Participants                      25            4,530              5,070         9,600
Substance Abuse                                Actual # Participants                      560            230                260           490

Total Potential Ridership                                                                              415,630            465,770       881,400


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

   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                                            Western El Dorado County
   Page 108                                                                                                     2008 Short Range Transit Plan
EDCTA either as part of the general public services or as part of contracted services. 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.

SUMMARY OF SHORT-RANGE TRANSIT DEMAND
A summary of the various elements of transit demand in Western El Dorado County in 2000 is presented
in Table 41 and in Figures 31 and 32. As indicated, total transit demand is split into urban (El Dorado
Hills and Cameron Park) and rural (the remainder of Western El Dorado County). The combined urban
and rural total transit demand within Western El Dorado County is estimated to equal 1,824,930 annual
one-way passenger-trips if a very high level of service could be provided. It should be emphasized,
however, that these numbers represent a maximum potential under optimal service conditions throughout
Western El Dorado County. It is not financially feasible to expect that the transit services that serve
Western El Dorado County could ever approach this level of service.

In the urban area, the largest portion of estimated demand is generated by Social Service program-related
transit demand (45.8 percent), followed by commuter transit demand (20.6 percent), other non-program
demand (18.3 percent), and elderly and disabled demand (15.2 percent). In the rural portion of Western El
Dorado County, program demand comprised the greatest proportion of demand (50.7 percent), followed
by other non-program demand (42.3 percent), elderly demand (6.3 percent), and disabled demand (less
than 1 percent).

The LSC Team applied the results of the 2005 EDCTA onboard survey results prepared by Majic
Consulting Group to FY 2006/07 EDCTA ridership in order to allocate transit trips to each passenger type
and trip purpose. This table also presents data regarding how well transit demand is being met in Western
El Dorado County. Overall, as presented in Table 41, EDCTA is meeting approximately 16.0 percent of
total urban transit demand and 23.5 percent of total rural demand in Western El Dorado County. Again, it
is important to note that it is not financially feasible to expect that the transit services could meet all
transit demand in the region.




Western El Dorado County                                                    LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                         Page 109
TABLE 41: Summary of Western El Dorado County Transit Demand
                                                                                Type of Trip
                                                                 Elderly /      Other Non-        Total Non-
URBAN ESTIMATES                                  Work (1)        Disabled       Program
                                                                                         (2)
                                                                                                   Program        Program
                                                                                                                              (3)
                                                                                                                                     TOTAL

2000 Urban Demand Estimates
Urban W. El Dorado County                       187,140          137,800          166,050          490,990          415,630          906,620

2000 Urban Ridership
EDCTA – Urban                                   107,493           2,795             9,316          119,605           25,182          144,786

2000 Urban Unmet Demand
Urban W. El Dorado County                        79,647          135,005          156,734          371,385          390,448          761,834

Percent of Urban Demand Met: 2000
Urban W. El Dorado County                        57.4%             2.0%            5.6%             24.4%             6.1%            16.0%
                                                                                Type of Trip
                                                                                Other Non-        Total Non-
                                                                                                                   (3)
RURAL ESTIMATES                                  Elderly         Disabled        Program           Program Program                  TOTAL

2000 Rural Demand Estimates
Rural W. El Dorado County                        57,530           6,190           388,820          452,540          465,770          918,310

2000 Rural Ridership
EDCTA – Rural                                    33,820           4,230           131,053          169,103           46,770          215,873
2000 Rural Unmet Demand
Rural W. El Dorado County                        23,710           1,960           257,767          283,437          419,000         1,032,021

Percent of Rural Demand Met: 2000
Rural W. El Dorado County                        58.8%            68.3%            33.7%            37.4%            10.0%            23.5%

                                                                                                  Total Non-
                                                                                                                              (3)
2015 TOTAL STUDY AREA ESTIMATES                                                                    Program        Program            TOTAL

2015 Demand Estimates
Urban W. El Dorado County                                                                          693,200          586,800          1,280,000
Rural W. El Dorado County                                                                          638,910          657,590          1,296,500
                                                                                     Subtotal     1,332,110        1,244,390         2,576,500

2015 Unmet Demand If Transit Service Are Unchanged from 2000
Urban W. El Dorado County                                                                          573,595          561,618          1,135,214
Rural W. El Dorado County                                                                          469,807          610,820          1,080,627
                                                                                     Subtotal     1,043,403        1,172,438         2,215,841

Note 1: Based upon employee trip estimation methodology.
Note 2: Mode split methodology minus employee trip methodology for urban core, TCRP methodology and employee trip methodology in rural areas.
Note 3: TCRP methodology; allocated based on proportion of urban vs. rural demographics, factored up 50 percent for urban areas to account for
greater propensity of program-related users to live in urbanized areas.
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.




  LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                                          Western El Dorado County
  Page 110                                                                                                   2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                FIGURE 31: Western El Dorado County
                                      Urban Transit Demand




                                                                                       Work, 20.6%




          Program, 45.8%




                                                                                                       Elderly & Disabled, 15.2%




                                                                 Other Non-Program, 18.3%




                                FIGURE 32: Western El Dorado County
                                      Rural Transit Demand


                                                     Elderly, 6.3%
                                                                      Disabled, 0.7%




      Program, 50.7%

                                                                                                       Other Non-Program, 42.3%




Western El Dorado County                                                               LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                                    Page 111
                                       This page left intentionally blank.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                            Western El Dorado County
Page 112                                                                     2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                                                                   Chapter 5
                                       EDCTA 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 being spent 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, EDCTA has not developed a consistent and comprehensive set of policy statements. The
EDCTA adopted mission statement is:

    “To provide effective public transit, coordinate transit services, reduce vehicle miles traveled on the
    western slope of El Dorado County and actively support reduction emissions to improve air quality.”

In addition, the single adopted goal of the EDCTA is:

    “To provide safe, reliable, courteous, attractive, and comfortable public transit.”

This chapter presents recommended goals, objectives, and standards, specific to the EDCTA service area.
The need for these policy statements is also a finding of the FY 2004/06 Triennial Performance Audit of
El Dorado County Transit Authority. This chapter first presents a review of existing policy statements,
both adopted by EDCTA as well as by other organizations (such as EDCTC) that address transit issues in
Western El Dorado County. Recommended policy statements are then presented.

REVIEW OF EXISTING ADOPTED GOALS
Several planning documents, as discussed in Chapter 2 of this document, provide existing adopted policy
statements with regards to transit services. The following is a selection of noteworthy goals from various
documents.



Western El Dorado County                                                      LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                           Page 113
El Dorado County Regional Transportation Plan 2025

The current Regional Transportation Plan, adopted by EDCTC in 2005, cites the following goals:

    Provide and maintain a safe, efficient and convenient countywide roadway system that meets the
    travel needs of people and goods through and within the region.

    Promote effective, convenient, and desirable public transit for residents of and visitors to El Dorado
    County.

    Provide for the safe and efficient movement of goods through and within El Dorado County.

    Provide a safe, convenient, and efficient non-motorized transportation system which is part of a
    balanced overall transportation system.

    Promote the use of alternative transportation to reduce the negative impacts of single-occupant
    vehicle travel.

    Secure maximum available funding and pursue new sources of funds for maintenance, expansion, and
    improvement of transportation facilities and services.

El Dorado County General Plan

    To plan for and provide a unified, coordinated and cost-efficient countywide road and highway
    system that ensures the safe, orderly and efficient movement of people and goods.

    To coordinate planning and implementation of roadway improvements with new development to
    maintain adequate levels of service on County roads.

    To promote a safe and efficient transit system that provides service to all residents, including senior
    citizens, youths, the disabled, and those without access to automobiles that also helps to reduce
    congestion and improves the environment.

    To reduce travel demand on the County’s road system and maximize the operating efficiency of
    transportation facilities, thereby reducing the quantity of motor vehicle emissions and the amount of
    investment required in new or expanded facilities.

    To provide a safe, continuous and easily accessible non-motorized transportation system that
    facilitates the use of the viable alternative transportation modes.

El Dorado County Area Agency on Aging Area Plan Update 2007-2008

    Provide a comprehensive array of community services designed to improve the quality of life and to
    maintain seniors and functionally impaired adults in the home and/or community.

    Advocate for the expansion of transportation services for seniors.

    The Senior Nutrition Program will collaborate with the Cameron Park Community Services District
    to help plan and design a new community center to be constructed adjacent to the library.



LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                  Western El Dorado County
Page 114                                                                           2008 Short Range Transit Plan
    Advocate for the expansion of public transportation services to the new Cameron Park Community
    Center.

    Explore the possibility of bringing a volunteer-supported transportation system modeled after the SLT
    and Placerville program.

    Volunteer coordinator will expand the volunteer-supported Senior Shuttle to include one additional
    service area and one additional day of service.

Sacramento Regional Metropolitan Transportation Plan

This plan, adopted by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments in 2006, identifies the following
goals pertinent to transit services provided by EDCTA:

    Develop a fully-integrated, multi-modal transportation system to serve as a catalyst to enhance the
    quality of life enjoyed by the current and future residents of the Sacramento Region.

    Improve access to goods, jobs, services, housing, and other destinations. Provide mobility for people
    and goods throughout the region, in a safe, affordable, efficient, and convenient manner.

    Develop a transportation system and related strategies that contribute to achieving healthy air in the
    region.

    Provide affordable, convenient, safe, and integrated travel choices.

    Enhance the economic vitality of our region by efficiently and effectively connecting people to jobs,
    goods, and services, and by moving goods within our region and beyond with an integrated multi-
    modal freight system.

    Pursue a transportation system that addresses the needs of all people in all parts of the region and
    assure that impacts of the transportation projects don’t adversely affect particular communities
    disproportionately.

    Influence land use policies to improve access to jobs, services, and house to everyone in the region by
    using market forces and the regulatory process.

    Develop the transportation system to promote and enhance environmental quality for present and
    future generations.

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
expenses. For El Dorado 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.

Western El Dorado County                                                     LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                          Page 115
RECOMMENDED GOALS, PERFORMANCE MEASURES, AND STANDARDS
The following goals, performance measures, and standards are designed to reflect the adopted policy
statements of the region. Goals establish general direction for policies and operation and are value-driven
providing 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 following
EDCTA services:

    Commuter services
    Local route services (local fixed-route and route-deviation services in the US 50 Corridor, including
    the IPC)
    DAR services
    Rural services

Contract services (such as the M.O.R.E. service) are not covered by this discussion, as the service
standards are addressed in the individual contract agreements. In addition, the SAC-MED service is not
considered, as it is a specialized service providing for specific medical needs.

Standards are provided as appropriate, based upon observed performance of similar transit systems in
California, as well as the existing performance of EDCTA transit services. Goals, performance measures
and standards specific to each type of service are presented in Table 42 along with EDCTA quantitative
results for FY 2006/07 where applicable. Areas where EDCTA did not meet the standard in FY 2006/07
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 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.)

Commuter Services

These standards apply to the Sacramento Commuter/Reverse Commuter service (considered as a whole),
and would be applied to any future new service west of Folsom.

    Farebox Recovery Ratio Standard – The ratio of farebox income to operating costs should meet or
    exceed 50 percent.

    Subsidy Standard – The public operation/administrative subsidy per passenger-trip for service should
    not exceed $3 (in FY 2007/08), based on both industry standards and existing transit system goals.
    This standard should be adjusted annually to account for inflation.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                   Western El Dorado County
Page 116                                                                            2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                       TABLE 42: Western El Dorado County Goals and Standards for Transit Service
                                          Fiscal Year 2006-07 Results                                        = Does Not Meet Standard


                                                                                                                                       Service
                                                                                                                                    Effectiveness




Western El Dorado County
                                                                                               Service Efficiency Goal                  Goal                                                                  Service Quality Goal




2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                               Performance Measure                                                                                                                               On-Time
                                                                                        Operating Farebox Operating Subsidy        Passenger-Trips                                                             Performance                                        Service
                                                                                          Return Ratio     Per Passenger-            per Vehicle          Passenger Amenity                                      Standard          Missed       In-Vehicle       Headway
                                                                                            Standard        Trip Standard           Service Hour          Standard (Shelters &        Service Availability    (Minimum % of         Trips      Travel Time       Standard      Trip Denial
                                                                                                     (1)                                                                                                                                       (Maximum)
                                       Service                                            (Minimum)         (Maximum)(1)             (Minimum)                 Seating)                    Standard           Trips On-Time      (Maximum)                      (Minimum)       Standard
                                       Commuter Services
                                                                                                                                                                       Shelter >=    Serve Employment                                          Less Than 3
                                                                                                                                                      Seating >= 5        10         Centers That Can                                          Times Auto
                                          Standard                                             50.0%               $3.00                 10.0          psgrs/day       psgrs/day     Meet Other Goals?             90%              1%         Travel Time          N/A               N/A
                                          Sacramento Commuter/Reverse Commute                  63.2%               $2.65                 14.5              No             No                Yes                    N/A              N/A            Yes              N/A               N/A

                                       Local Route Services
                                                                                                                                                                                                              90% for Fixed-
                                                                                                                                                                   Shelter >=         Service Within 1/4     Routes, 80% for                   Less Than 3
                                                                                                                                                      Seating >= 5    10               Mile of 85% of        Deviated Fixed-                   Times Auto
                                          Standard                                            10.0%                $15.00                5.0           psgrs/day   psgrs/day             Residents?              Routes             1%         Travel Time      60 Minutes            N/A
                                          Cameron Park/ FLC                                   10.6%                $12.82                6.5               --          --                     --                   N/A              N/A            Yes             Yes                N/A
                                          Diamond Springs / FLC                               11.5%                $10.50                7.1               --          --                     --                   N/A              N/A            Yes             Yes                N/A
                                          Placerville East/ West                              17.9%                 $6.71                10.9              --          --                     --                   N/A              N/A           No (1)           Yes                N/A
                                          Placerville Express                                  1.9%                $15.21                5.8               --          --                     --                   N/A              N/A            Yes             Yes                N/A
                                          Pollock Pines                                       12.4%                $12.18                 7.2              --          --                     --                   N/A              N/A            Yes             Yes                N/A
                                          Iron Point Connector                                 4.0%                $53.49                1.8               --          --                     --                   N/A              N/A            Yes              No                N/A
                                          Total Local Routes                                  10.7%                $11.73                7.1              No          No                     No                    N/A              N/A


                                       Rural Services
                                          Standard                                             5.0%                $35.00                2.5               N/A            N/A                 N/A                  90%              1%                              N/A               N/A
                                          Grizzly Flat                                         7.6%                $30.71                3.0               N/A            N/A                 N/A                  N/A              N/A            Yes              N/A               N/A
                                          South County                                         1.3%                $89.59                1.1               N/A            N/A                 N/A                   N/A             N/A            Yes              N/A               N/A

                                       Demand Response Services
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              75% of Trips
                                                                                                                                                                                      Service Within 3/4                                      within 45 min,
                                                                                                                                                                                        Mile of Fixed-                                        100% Within                     No Pattern of
                                          Standard                                              N/A                  N/A                 2.0               N/A            N/A             Routes?                  95%              1%            60 min            N/A       ADA Denials
                                          Dial-A-Ride                                           N/A                  N/A                 2.4               N/A            N/A                Yes                   N/A              N/A            Yes              N/A           Yes

                                       Note 1: While the Placerville Express route does not attain this standard for service across Placerville, in combination with the Placerville East /West routes this standard is attained for the Placerville local route system as a whole.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                          Page 117
Local Route Services

These standards apply to the local routes (both deviated and fixed) that serve the US 50 Corridor,
including the IPC.

    Farebox Recovery Ratio Standard – The ratio of farebox income to operating costs should meet or
    exceed 10 percent.

    Subsidy Standard – The public operation/administrative subsidy per passenger-trip for service should
    not exceed $15 in FY 2007/08, based on industry standards and recent experience. This standard
    should be adjusted annually to account for inflation.

In FY 2006/07 the Placerville Express and IPC routes did not meet these standards. It should be noted that
in combination with the Placerville East/West routes the farebox and subsidy standards are attained for
the Placerville local route system as a whole.

Rural Services

These standards apply to the existing South County and Grizzly Flat services, as well as any future
services outside of the US 50 Corridor in El Dorado County. It is recognized that rural services are
inherently less effective than services in more populated areas.

    Farebox Recovery Ratio Standard – The ratio of farebox income to operating costs should meet or
    exceed 5 percent.

    Subsidy Standard – The public operation/administrative subsidy per passenger-trip for shuttle service
    should not exceed $35 in FY 2007/08. This is a realistic standard, based on the inherent financial
    challenges of providing rural service. This standard should be adjusted annually to account for
    inflation.

The South County route did not meet these standards in FY 2006/07.

Service Effectiveness Goal

To maximize the ridership potential of EDCTA service. (The standards should not be strictly applied to
new routes 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 10 passenger-trips per vehicle service hour.

Local Route Services

    Service Effectiveness Standard – Serve a minimum of 5 passenger-trips per vehicle service hour. The
    IPC did not meet this standard in FY 2006/07.

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                 Western El Dorado County
Page 118                                                                          2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Rural Services

    Service Effectiveness Standard – Serve a minimum of 2.5 passenger-trips per vehicle service hour.
    The South County route did not meet this standard in FY 2006/07.

Demand Response Services

    Service Effectiveness Standard – Serve a minimum of 2 passenger-trips per vehicle service hour.

Service Quality Goal

To provide safe, reliable, and convenient transit services.

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 runs.

    Regional Connectivity Standard – Local service should be provided within one block of all regional
    transit transfer locations and intercity bus/rail stops. EDCTA marketing materials shall provide
    information sources regarding connecting services. Passenger facilities should be improved to
    enhance regional public transportation connections. EDCTA services meet this standard.

    Accident Standard – Maintain a minimum of 50,000 miles between preventable collision accidents
    and 25,000 miles between all types of accidents. EDCTA does not record the mileage between
    accidents but a review of accident summaries over the last three years indicated that EDCTA
    generally meets this standard.

    Maintenance Standard – Maintain a minimum of 10,000 miles between roadcalls. The EDCTA fleet
    does not always meet this standard.

    Preventive Maintenance Standard – 100 percent of preventative maintenance actions should be
    completed within 500 miles of schedule. EDCTA 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. EDCTA has several vehicles
    which are due for replacement. The average age of the fleet is 4.76 years.

    Vehicle Cleanliness Standard – The outside of all vehicles in regular use shall be washed at least
    weekly, except when water use restrictions are in effect. 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) and less than 1 per 3,000 passenger-trips (demand-response). Management response
    should be provided to all complaints within one working day. EDCTA typically responds to
    complaints within one business day.

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


Western El Dorado County                                                      LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                           Page 119
Commuter Services

These standards can be applied specifically to the Sacramento and Reverse Commuter routes as shown in
Table 42.

    Passenger Amenity Standard – Shelter should be provided at all transit stops serving 10 or more
    passengers per day within Western El Dorado County. Seating should be provided at all transit stops
    serving 5 or more passengers per day within Western El Dorado County. Under this standard, the
    Ponderosa, Rodeo, and El Dorado County Fairgrounds Park-and-Rides should have shelters.

    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 5 minutes late.

    Missed Trips Standard – The proportion of runs not operated or 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.

Local Route Services

    Passenger Amenity Standard – Shelter should be provided at all transit stops serving 10 or more
    passengers per day within Western El Dorado County. Seating should be provided at all transit stops
    serving 5 or more passengers per day within Western El Dorado County. If this standard were applied
    to EDCTA, an additional 7 shelters and 5 benches would be required.

    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 85 percent of the population of urbanized areas is within one-
    fourth mile of a fixed-route or within the service area of a deviated fixed-route or general public DAR
    service.

    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 five 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 not operated or 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; strive to provide 30-minute headways where cost-effective in order
    to improve service quality.



LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                Western El Dorado County
Page 120                                                                         2008 Short Range Transit Plan
    Bus Stop Spacing Standard – Buses should serve approximately 4 to 6 bus stops per mile in
    developed areas.

Rural Services

    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 15 minutes late should be
    no more than 1 percent.

Demand Response Services

    Service Availability Standard – Provide demand response service to all areas within three-fourth’s
    mile of fixed-route service, per the requirements of the ADA.

    On-Time Performance Standard – 95 percent of all scheduled pick-ups should be provided “on-time,”
    defined as no more than 10 minutes late.

    Missed Trips Standard – The proportion of runs not operated or more than 30 minutes late should be
    no more than 1 percent.

    In-Vehicle Travel Time Standard – 75 percent of passengers should reach their destinations within 45
    minutes and 100 percent within 60 minutes.

    Trip Denial Standard – No pattern of trip denials to ADA eligible passengers shall exist due to vehicle
    unavailability. Reschedule denied trips where possible.

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.

    ADA Goal – Fully meet the requirements of the ADA.

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 – Short Range Transit 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.



Western El Dorado County                                                    LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                         Page 121
    Transportation Development Act Standard – The requirements of the Transportation Development
    Act 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 El Dorado County
    Development Services Department and City of Placerville Community Development 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 EDCTA services. Targeted marketing efforts shall be conducted for high-potential groups,
    including elderly, disabled, and low-income residents. A minimum of 2 percent (and preferably 3
    percent) of total annual operating/administrative budget should be expended on marketing efforts.
    Up-to-date schedules and route maps should be conveniently available to the public at all times.

    Administrative Cost Standard – Administrative costs should be 15 percent or less of total operating
    costs.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                 Western El Dorado County
Page 122                                                                          2008 Short Range Transit 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.

DEVIATED FIXED-ROUTE SERVICE ALTERNATIVES
El Dorado Hills Fixed-Route Circulator

El Dorado Hills is an important activity center not currently well served by EDCTA. Current services
consist only of Commuter and IPC services to the El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride, and DAR services. The
evaluation of potential transit demand presented in Chapter 4 as well as interviews and information from
social service program managers indicate a significant transit demand, particularly among teens, seniors,
and the disabled. In addition, the major employment centers in the southern portion of El Dorado Hills
generate a potential for transit ridership. Significant development over the last 3-5 years in particular have
increased the potential for public transit usage.

Many of the commercial, recreational, and public land uses and the higher density housing areas in El
Dorado Hills are located generally along the El Dorado Hills/Latrobe Road corridor, making them
relatively easy to serve. However, the majority of single family homes are located outside of a convenient
walking distance (typically considered to be a quarter mile for local bus service) from this corridor, and
located along winding subdivision streets which are difficult to serve with a bus route. One option
initially considered to serve residential areas was a “route deviation” service in which scheduled stops
would be served along the major roadways and time would be available in the schedule to serve
individual ride requests to locations in residential neighborhoods. However, the time needed to serve the
major corridor would not provide adequate time to also serve deviation requests while still providing at
least hourly service with a single vehicle. As operating more than a single vehicle would not be cost-
effective (at least in the short term), a route deviation service was not considered to be feasible. A strategy
of providing a fixed-route along with continued DAR service was therefore developed.

Figure 33 presents a potential route for this fixed-route. As shown, it would originate at the El Dorado
Hills Park-and-Ride and consist of two segments with a series of designated “on demand” stops:

    The North Route would travel north along El Dorado Hills Boulevard, directly serving the Raley’s
    Center. The route would also divert off of El Dorado Hills Boulevard on Harvard Way and St.
    Andrews Way to directly serve schools, teen center, and senior center. The route would turn left on
    Francisco Drive, right onto Village Center Drive, and right onto Salmon Falls Road before returning
    along El Dorado Hills Boulevard. “On demand” stops would be designated at apartment complexes
    along this route as well as at the Lake Forest School and Marina Village School. Designating stops
    directly along El Dorado Hills Boulevard will require a site-by-site evaluation of available pavement
    width, as it would not be acceptable for transit vehicles to block travel lanes. This route segment
    would require roughly 35 minutes to complete.




Western El Dorado County                                                      LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                           Page 123
                                                    FIGURE 33

                      Potential El Dorado Hills Deviated Fixed-Route


                                                                 MARINA
                                         LAKE                    VILLAGE
                                        FOREST                   SCHOOL
                                        SCHOOL

                                                                                                           .
                                                    VILLAGE CENTER                                  Y RD
                                                                                     ALLE
                                                                                 EN V
                                                                           GRE

                                        VILLAGE                        JACKSON
                                        CENTER                          SCHOOL

                                                  EL DO
                                                   RADO
                                                       HILLS




                                                                                                                                         SCALE
                                                          BLVD




                                                                          EW   S DR.                                             0         .5           1
                  LEGEND                                         ST. ANDR
                                                           .




               HIGHWAY 50                                                        CSD TEEN                      ROLLING
                                                                                                                                         IN MILES
                                                                                                                HILLS
               ROADS                                                              CENTER
                                                                                                               SCHOOL
               LAKES                     RECREATION
                                          FACILITIES
               EDH ROUTE
               ¾ MILE DEVIATION                                        HARVARD WAY
               SERVICE AREA (APPROX.)
                                                                                   SILVA VA
                                                                                            LLEY
                                                                                           PK
                                                                                              Y.




                                                                                                                       OAK MEADOW
                                                                                                                         SCHOOL




                                                                                                     RALEY’S
                                                                                                     CENTER
                                                                                  PARK




                                                        SENIOR
                                                                                                               ST. TOWN
                                                        CENTER
                                                                                                                                                            50
                                                                                                         ST
                                                                                                    PO           CENTER
                                                                                                      VI
                                                                                                         N




                                                                                                                 D.
                                                                                                           E
                                                                            LAT




                                                                                                               KR
                                                                                                       R OC
                                                                               ROB




                                                                                                   ITE
                                                                                          WH
                                                                                 E




                                                                                                                    VA
                                                                                                                       L
                                                                                                                      LE




                                                                     PARK &
                                                                                                                       YV




                                                                      RIDE
  50
                                                                                                                           IEW
                                                                                                                            PK
                                                                                                                               Y.




                                                                                                           .
                                                                                                         LN
                                                                                                    ST
                                                                                  SUN CA

  TRANSPORTATION
  CONSULTANTS, INC.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                                                                Western El Dorado County
Page 124                                                                                                                         2008 Short Range Transit Plan
    The South Route would consist of a smaller loop serving the Town Center and Town Center East
    areas, the multifamily area along Valley View Parkway, and the Sunset Mobile Home Park. This
    route segment would require roughly 7 minutes to complete.

    The El Dorado Hills Business Park would be served by a series of signed On Demand stops, located
    along Golden Foothill Parkway, Windplay Drive, Suncast Lane, Mathews Parkway, and Investment
    Boulevard. Depending on requests, this service would require 10 minutes to complete.

The On Demand stops would be signed and served as needed to accommodate passengers making
requests for service. They would be served at a specific time past the hour, but only upon request.
Requests can be made in the following ways:

    By phone on the day of service, a minimum of 30 minutes prior to the scheduled time.
    On the bus, by directly asking the driver for service.
    As a “standing request,” once a pattern of regular use is established.

These On Demand stops are intended to generate the need for service only when necessary to serve
passengers, thereby reducing in-vehicle travel time and costs associated with service to a stop when no
passengers desire service. It can be expected that the service requests will identify specific times (such as
around shift changes at employment centers) when service will regularly be requested. Once a pattern is
established, some runs may be converted to a regular schedule.

This service would be timed to provide direct transfers to the IPC at the El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride.
The IPC currently serves this stop at 53 minutes past the hour in the eastbound direction and 10 minutes
past the hour in the westbound direction. A reasonable hourly schedule would be as follows:

    North Route departs at 10 after, returning at 45 after.
    East Route departs at 53 after, returning at the top of the hour.
    From the top of the hour to 10 after the bus is available to service On Demand stops or can layover.

This schedule provides convenient connections between the North Route and IPC services to and from
Placerville, as well as convenient connections between the East Route and Business Park stops and IPC
services to and from Folsom. As shown in Table 43, this service would incur an operating cost of
approximately $316,800 per year.

Potential ridership on this service can be evaluated in two elements – resident trips and employment trips.
Resident trip demand is estimated to equal 7,600 one-way trips per year, based on the observed ridership
in Cameron Park factored by the relative population and population characteristics, the better hourly level
of service that would be provided in El Dorado Hills, and the social service programs that would be
served in El Dorado Hills. Employment trips are estimated to equal 4,500 one-way passenger-trips per
year based on the employment levels in El Dorado Hills, typical transit mode split figures observed in
similar suburban employment centers, and the commute patterns of El Dorado Hills Industrial Park
employees. In particular, some of the major employers such as DST report that they typically operate 12-
hour shifts (6:00 AM to 6:00 PM) that are difficult to serve using traditional public transit. In total,
ridership on this service is estimated to equal 12,100 passenger-trips per year. Subtracting the associated
$18,200 in passenger fare revenues, net subsidy requirements are estimated to equal $298,600.




Western El Dorado County                                                      LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                           Page 125
TABLE 43: El Dorado County Transit Authority Service Alternatives
  FY 2008/09 Ridership and Cost Analysis
                                                                                 Operating Characteristics
                                                                                 Total Annual                              Ridership Impact           Annual
                                                                     Vehicles     Veh. Serv. Veh. Serv. Operating          (One-Way Trips)      Farebox   Subsidy
Alternative                                                         Required 1      Miles      Hours       Cost3            Daily   Annual      Revenue Required

Status Quo
  Local Route Service                                                     7         283,177      17,111     $1,392,200        –     143,700     $192,200 $1,200,000
  Rural Routes                                                            1           8,398        332        $29,800                 800         $1,700  $28,100
  Dial-A-Ride Service                                                     8         319,318      14,042     $1,225,000        –     34,100       $67,400 $1,157,600
  Sacramento Commuter Service                                            10         267,508       8,730      $827,000         –     129,800     $578,500 $248,500
  Iron Point Connector                                                    1          96,712       3,427      $316,800                6,500       $14,000  $302,800
  Special Services                                                        3         11,778        1,149       $86,600         –     14,100       $4,500   $82,100
  Sac Med                                                                 1         14,749         482        $45,600                 800        $3,400   $42,200
  Fixed Costs                                                             –             –           –        $841,000         –        –             –        –
       Subtotal (Excludes Contracted Services)                           31        1,001,640     45,273     $4,764,000        –     329800      $858,300 $3,905,700

Local Route Alternatives
  El Dorado Hills Fixed Route Circulator                                 1          75,657        3,732      $316,800        47      13,600     $18,200     $298,600

  Express / Community Routes
      Additional US 50 (Iron Point Connector) Runs                       1          82,896        2,937      $271,500        99      24,800     $53,500        –
      Change in Cameron Park Route                                       0          12,166         281        $30,000         –         –          –           –
      El Dorado Hills Fixed Route                                        1          75,657        3,732      $316,800        47      13,600     $18,200        –
      Total                                                              2          170,719       6,950      $618,300        146     38,400     $71,700     $546,600
  Combined Pville Express/ Pollock Pines Route                           0             0            0            $0          12      2,900       $3,900      -$3,900
  Add Earlier Pollock Pines Run                                          –           8,000         500        $40,400         7      1,800       $3,800      $36,600

  Extend Local Route Service 1 Hour in Evening                           0          25,380        1,481      $121,400        29      7,320       $9,800     $111,600

  Sunday Service on Local Routes                                         1          14,530        1,046       $82,500        65      3,300       $4,400      $78,100
  Sunday Taxi Voucher Program
      Existing Service                                                   –          13,917         612         $65,600       24      1,210       $2,600     $63,000
      Taxi Voucher Program                                                                                     $18,800               1,210       $2,600     $16,200
      Difference                                                                                              -$46,800                 0           $0       -$46,800

  Modify Placerville Route to Serve Eskaton                              0           2,153          0          $2,000        16      4,600       $3,080      -$1,080
  Modify Placerville Route to Serve Mallard Lane Development             0            861           0           $800          3       900        $1,200       -$400
Iron Point Connector Alternatives
   Shift Schedule Mid-Day to Better Serve Commuters                      0          -13,816        -490       -$45,300       3        800       $1,700      -$47,000
   Add a 6:40 AM Run                                                     1          14,500         625         $54,800       4       1,000      $2,200       $52,600
   Add a 4:40 PM Run                                                     1           14,500         625        $54,800        5      1,300      $2,800       $52,000
   Serve Foothill Oaks Casino                                            0            3,500          0          $3,300       80      20,000     $43,200     -$39,900

Sacramento Commuter Alternatives
  Terminate at Sunrise                                                   -3        -189,045       -6,739     -$621,800      -275    -68,800    -$306,600    -$315,200
  Terminate in Folsom                                                              -213,270       -7,372     -$686,400      -291    -72,800    -$324,500    -$361,900
  Add AM Route Arriving Around 7:50 AM                                   0          11,631         380        $36,000         24     6,000      $26,700       $9,300
  Add PM Route Departing Around 3:50 PM                                  1          11,631         380         $36,000        18     4,500       $20,100     $15,900
  Eliminate Route 10 PM Run                                              -1         -11,631        -380       -$36,000       -13     -3,300     -$14,700     -$21,300

Provide Commuter Service from Folsom to El Dorado Hills                  1          49,000        2,125      $186,000        48      11,900     $25,700     $160,300

Reinstate Commuter Service to Rancho Cordova                             2          88,921        1,656      $193,100        15      3,800       $8,700     $184,400
Rural Services
  Eliminate South County Service                                         –           -3,431        -133       -$12,000       -3      -147        -$180      -$11,820
  Georgetown -- Cool -- Auburn Service                                   –            5,406         204        $14,000       27      1,400       $1,700      $12,300
Provide Sac-Med Service One Additional Day per Week                      0           7,375         241        $22,800         7       360        $1,500      $21,300
Expand Dial A Ride                                                       2          68,221        3,000      $261,700        29      7,300      $14,400     $247,300

Note 1: Excluding spares, which can only be calculated for the system as a whole. The Status Quo option "distributes" the existing fleet based on peak needs (as
detailed in Figure 19)
Note 2: Assumes 250 weekdays and 51 Saturdays of service.
Note 3: Based on EDCTA FY 2006-07 cost model presented in Table 28 of Tech Memo 1, factored up 3 percent annually.

Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.




 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                                                          Western El Dorado County
 Page 126                                                                                                                   2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Express/Community Route Alternative

At present, the EDCTA local route network is configured as a “pulse point” transit network, wherein all
local buses (other than the Pollock Pines Route) serve a single transfer point (Missouri Flat Transfer
Center), scheduled as much as possible to allow direct transfers between buses at this point. This strategy
is best for a relatively compact urbanized area with a strong activity zone near the center of the overall
service area.

An alternative service plan that better fits the urban form of the US 50 corridor is a combination of an
Express Route along US 50 and a series of Community Shuttle routes. As shown in Figure 34, the basis
for this plan would be an Express Route that serves the US 50 corridor between Placerville Station and
the Iron Point Light Rail Station, incorporating both the existing Placerville Express as well as the IPC.
Two buses would be operated to provide hourly service.

The Community Shuttle routes would be as follows:

    Two buses would continue to operate the existing Placerville Routes on an hourly headway.

    One bus would operate the existing Diamond Springs and Folsom Lake College Routes on an hourly
    headway (no longer interlining with the Cameron Park Route). Passengers would transfer to the
    Express Route at Missouri Flat Transfer Center (MFTC).

    The Cameron Park Route would serve the existing route through Cameron Park and Shingle Springs,
    but would no longer travel east of Sunset Lane on Mother Lode Drive. Instead, the one bus would be
    able to provide hourly service, rather than the current service of every two hours. Passengers would
    transfer to the Express Route at the Ponderosa Park-and-Ride.

    One bus would be used to operate the hourly El Dorado Hills Route, as discussed above, transferring
    passengers to the Express Route at the El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride.

The Express Route could also serve the other Park-and-Ride lots at specific times during commute
periods, or on request at other times. Overall, this option would require two more buses than currently
operated: one to provide hourly service on the Express Route and one to operate the El Dorado Hills
Route.

Advantages of this strategy would be as follows:

    This would greatly improve access from El Dorado Hills to Cameron Park and Placerville, as well as
    from Cameron Park to El Dorado Hills, providing service every hour rather than every two hours.

    Service frequency in Cameron Park would be increased from every two hours to every hour.

    Hourly service connections would be provided to Light Rail, increasing the ability of commuters to
    use Light Rail and the Express Route to access Rancho Cordova and downtown Sacramento, either in
    the commute periods or mid-day.




Western El Dorado County                                                     LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                          Page 127
                                                                                                                                                       FIGURE 34




Page 128
                                                                                                             Community/Express Route Alternative
                                                                                                                                                                                             49                                193
                                                                                                LEGEND
                                                                   HIGHWAY 50
                                                                   ROADS
                                                                   LAKES
                                                                   URBAN AREA
                                                                   NEW HOURLY EL DORADO HILLS ROUTE                                                                                                 EXISTING                PLACERVILLE STATION




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                                                   REVISED HOURLY CAMERON PARK ROUTE                                                                                              PLACERVILLE                TRANSFER CENTER/
                                                                   HOURLY EXPRESS ROUTE (COMBINED IPC & PLACERVILLE EXPRESS)                                                                         ROUTE                     PARK AND RIDE
                                                                   EXISTING FOLSOM LAKE CENTER ROUTE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        49
                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Y




                                                                   EXISTING PLACERVILLE ROUTE
                                                                                                                                                                           EXISTING FOLSOM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       LE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            SCHNELL SCHOOL




                                                                                                                                                                                                                      L




                                                                   EXISTING DIAMOND SPRINGS ROUTE                                                                           LAKE COLLEGE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   VA




                                                                   ON DEMAND SERVICE                                                                                RESCUE      ROUTE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 EN
                                                                                                                                                                                                             RE
                                                                                                                                                                                                             G




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                PLACERVILLE
                                                                 VILLAGE CENT                                                                                                                                                         MISSOURI FLAT
                                                                              ER                                                                                                                                                    TRANSFER CENTER




                                                          FRAN
                                                                                                                                                                  HOURLY EXPRESS
                                                                                                                                                                ROUTE (COMBINED IPC &                        50
                                                                          NEW HOURLY                                                                            PLACERVILLE EXPRESS)




                                                           CISCO
                                                                        EL DORADO HILLS
                                                                             ROUTE
                                                                                                                         RD.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       D.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              DIAMOND




                                                                                                                     N
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     R




                                                                                                                  RO
                                                                                                                                             REVISED HOURLY                                                                                     MHP
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  NI
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        LN.




                                                                                                                AR
                                                                                                                                  CRESCENT
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  RI




                                                                                                                                             CAMERON PARK




                                                                                                              M
                                                                                                                       CA


                                                                                                             IM
                                                                                                                                                                                                             FO




                                                                                                                                                 ROUTE




                                                                                                            C
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             DIAMOND
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       LER




                                                                                                                         MB
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             SPRINGS




                                                                                                                           RI
                                                                                                                              D
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      FOW




                                                                                                                               GE
                                                                                                                                  RD
                                                                                                                                    .
                                                                                                                                                              PONDEROSA
                                                                                                                                                              HIGH SCHOOL                                                   EXISTING DIAMOND
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             SPRINGS ROUTE
                                                                                                     CAMBRIDGE RD.                CAMERON
                                                                                                     PARK AND RIDE                PARK

                                                                                                                                                                                                        49
                                                                                                                                                          SHINGLE    PONDEROSA
                                                                                                50                                                        SPRINGS   PARK AND RIDE
                                           TO IRON
                                            POINT                                                                      RODEO RD.
                                           STATION                                                                   PARK AND RIDE



                                                                                   EL DORADO HILLS
                                                                                    PARK AND RIDE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        SCALE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                0         1             2

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        IN MILES
                                                  TRANSPORTATION




   Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                  CONSULTANTS, INC.




                                       EXPRESSCOMMUNITY
Disadvantages would consist of the following:

    Additional operating subsidy would be required.

    Existing Cameron Park passengers traveling to and from Placerville would be required to transfer. A
    review of existing ridership data indicates that roughly 75 percent of existing riders on the Cameron
    Park route travel to or from Placerville. The routes could be scheduled to provide direct transfers
    between the Cameron Park Route and the Express Route in both directions.

    Mother Lode Drive between Sunset Lane and El Dorado Road would no longer be served by an
    EDCTA route. However, a review of a week of ridership data indicates that less than one passenger
    per day is currently served by the stops along this route segment.

Based on an elasticity analysis of existing ridership and the impacts of these various service quality
factors, the net impact of this alternative on systemwide annual ridership (excluding the El Dorado Hills
Route discussed above) is estimated as follows:

         Increased Service Frequency on Cameron Park Route              8,200
         Need to Transfer between Cameron Park and Placerville           - 500
         Elimination of Service to Existing Stops on Mother Lode Drive   - 100
         Increased Service Frequency on IPC (US 50)                     8,300
         Total Impact                                                  15,900

The additional services, including the net increase in mileage associated with the change in the Cameron
Park Route, would increase overall operating costs by approximately $618,300 per year. Farebox
revenues would be increased by $52,500, yielding a net increase in required subsidy of $565,800.

Combine Placerville Express and Pollock Pines Routes

At present, the Placerville Express and Pollock Pines Routes both consist of a single vehicle operating
over an hourly route. The two routes meet at Placerville Station to transfer passengers at the top of the
hour. An option would be to combine these routes into a single route between Pollock Pines and the
Missouri Flat Transfer Center using two buses over a two-hour route to maintain the hourly headways.
This would allow passengers traveling between the two routes (which comprise roughly 75 percent of
Pollock Pines Route passengers) to simply stay on the bus to complete their trip. In addition to avoiding
the minor inconvenience of moving from one bus to the other, this avoids the uncertainty associated with
making the connection, which is a bigger deterrent to potential riders. The only disadvantage of this
option would be that delays on one portion of the route segment could cause delays on the other.

This option would incur essentially no cost to implement. The routes could still be designated as two
separate routes (with buses simply changing headsigns at Placerville Station), or designated as a single
route. In either case, route deviations would still be provided east of the Placerville complementary DAR
service area. Research indicates that passengers perceive the elimination of a transfer equivalent to a
reduction in travel time of 10 minutes. Applying an elasticity analysis to the existing ridership levels, this
alternative would increase ridership by approximately 2,900 passenger-trips per year.

Add Earlier Run on Pollock Pines Route

The current Pollock Pines Route schedule provides a first run leaving Pollock Pines at 7:00 AM and
arriving at the Missouri Flat Transfer Center at 7:40 AM. This schedule allows for residents living along
the Pollock Pines Route to get to destinations in Placerville prior to 8:00 AM, but not to other destinations

Western El Dorado County                                                      LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                           Page 129
on the local route network. This first run of the day, moreover, is the most popular run on this route,
carrying roughly 20 passengers per day westbound. Given this pattern, one option would be to operate an
earlier run beginning in Pollock Pines at 6:00 AM. This service would not require an additional vehicle,
but would incur an operating cost of $40,400 per year. Based on the existing ridership pattern and the
observed variation in ridership by time of day on similar systems, a reasonable estimate of ridership
potential on this run is 7 passengers per day, or 1,800 per year. These riders would generate roughly
$3,800 in fare revenues, resulting in an annual subsidy requirement of $36,600 per year.

Designate More Stops Along Pollock Pines Route

At present only six bus stops are designated with signs on the Pollock Pines Route outside of the
immediate Placerville area: three in Pollock Pines, two in Camino, and one in Camino Heights. The
designated stops serve 80 percent of the route’s ridership, while the remaining 20 percent of boardings
occur at on-request stops. Topography, limited right-of-way, and other constraints have been challenges
in designating additional stops.

In general, designating stops provides several benefits: (1) it shows passengers an acceptable location to
wait for the bus; (2) it indicates to drivers where a passenger can be served without an undue safety
hazard; and (3) it provides an ongoing physical “presence” in an area that increases public awareness of
the service and thus yields a substantial marketing benefit.

Other than the stops already designated, only two on-request stops get any significant (defined as 3 or
more total passenger boardings or alightings per day) level of activity: Pony Express/Mace (3 total
passengers per day) and Pony Express/Alder Road (5.4 passengers per day). Under this alternative,
additional stops would be designated with at least bus stop signs, focusing on these higher passenger
activity locations.

It should be noted that it is often appropriate to designate stops even where all of the criteria of a perfect
bus stop cannot be provided. For instance, it is common in rural areas to use an existing paved
intersecting driveway or roadway shoulder to deploy a wheelchair lift, rather than requiring stops only be
located where a 5’ X 8’ wheelchair pad can be provided. It is important, however, in the case of the
Pollock Pines route that (1) some means of loading and unloading wheelchair users be available; (2) the
bus be able to stop without impeding through travel lanes along Carson Road or Pony Express Trail; and
(3) a safe standing area be provided for waiting passengers.

Provide Additional Evening Service on Local Routes

At present, the earliest “last departure” time on the local routes is as follows:

    Placerville (Eastbound) – 5:00 PM (Missouri Flat Transit Center)
    Placerville (Westbound) – 5:00 PM (Woodman Circle)
    Placerville Express (Eastbound) – 4:35 PM (Missouri Flat Transit Center)
    Placerville Express (Westbound) – 5:05 PM (Placerville Transit Center)
    Cameron Park – 5:00 PM (Missouri Flat Transit Center)
    Diamond Springs – 5:00 PM (Missouri Flat Transit Center)
    Pollock Pines – 5:00 PM (Placerville Station)
    Folsom Lake College – 5:35 PM (Missouri Flat Transit Center)




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                   Western El Dorado County
Page 130                                                                            2008 Short Range Transit Plan
This schedule allows passengers with a departure time of 5:00 PM (such as an employee getting off work
at 5:00 PM) to make it home only if their trip does not require a transfer. If a transfer between routes is
required (such as a Diamond Springs resident working in Placerville), a 5:00 PM departure is not
currently served. Similar transit programs in Northern California typically provide service for roughly one
additional hour providing last departures until roughly 6:00 PM, with last arrivals until roughly 7:00 PM.

Under this alternative, one additional run on weekdays would be operated on the Placerville Routes, the
Diamond Springs Route, the Pollock Pines Route, and the Cameron Park Route. In addition, one
additional hour of DAR service would be added for complementary paratransit service in the Placerville
area.

One advantage of extending the service day, or increasing the number of days that the service is operated,
is that additional vehicles are not required. Thus, there are no direct capital costs associated with this
improvement (though the additional annual mileage could potentially shorten the economically useful life
of the transit buses). However, there are still annual operating costs to consider. As presented in Table 43
above, the estimated net annual increase in operating cost to extend local deviated fixed-route service by
one hour would amount to $121,400. The consultants reviewed current EDCTA ridership data by hour of
day to determine late afternoon trip patterns and to develop anticipated annual evening ridership. In
addition, the productivity of evening service on similar transit systems already providing such service was
reviewed. Based on this analysis, approximately 7,320 additional annual one-way passenger-trips and
$9,800 in farebox revenues are anticipated under this option. Thus, the annual net increase in subsidy
required would total $111,600 for the local deviated fixed-route service.

The greatest advantage of this option is that travelers whose work or school schedules end after the
current daily span of service would be able to use local transit services. In addition, this option would not
require additional vehicles. The disadvantage is that additional annual operating funding would be
required.

Sunday Service on Local Routes

EDCTA currently operates deviated fixed-route service Monday through Friday from roughly 6:30 AM to
6:00 PM, and on Saturdays from roughly 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 PM. No Sunday service is currently provided.
A reasonable alternative would be to provide Sunday local deviated fixed-route service similar to the
existing Saturday service. Under this alternative, four buses would provide service on the Placerville
Local, Diamond Springs, Pollock Pines, and Cameron Park Routes from roughly 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. In
addition, a DAR van would provide complementary paratransit service in the Placerville area.

As presented in Table 43 above, this option would require an additional $82,500 in annual operating
funds. Due to lower travel demand, transit ridership on Sunday services is typically observed in similar
systems to be half of Saturday ridership. Using this proportion as a basis for estimating Sunday ridership,
approximately 3,300 annual one-way passenger-trips would be provided, or 65 per day on the local
deviated fixed-route service. This ridership level would generate approximately $4,400 in additional
annual passenger fares. A total of $78,100 in annual operating subsidy would be required under this
option.

The greatest advantages of this option are that the fleet would not need to be expanded and the service
would increase riders’ access to jobs, shopping, and recreational opportunities. The greatest disadvantage
is the increase in annual operating cost.




Western El Dorado County                                                      LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                           Page 131
Sunday Taxicab Subsidy Program

At present, EDCTA services on Sundays are limited to the General Public DAR program. Two vehicles
are currently used for Sunday DAR, averaging approximately 12 vehicle-hours of service and serving
approximately 23 passenger-trips per day. One option to expand mobility on Sundays would be to provide
a taxi subsidy program. Under such a program, DAR passengers would be served by a local taxi services,
charged the existing DAR fare, and required to sign a voucher documenting the trip. The taxi company
then submits the voucher to EDCTA which in turn redeems the voucher at full value. This ensures that the
providers receive full fare for their services.

There are numerous examples of taxicab voucher programs around California. Several – particularly in
the Bay Area – are “guaranteed ride home” services only. Most are limited to disabled and/or elderly
residents only, including services in Susanville, Santa Fe Springs, Norwalk, Clovis, and Redondo Beach.
The specific financial arrangement varies, with some services providing service at a fixed price per
voucher, while in others the user pays a percentage of metered fare upon presentation of an ID card. In all
cases, it is very important to establish rigorous controls and monitoring procedures if abuse of the
program is to be avoided.

A reasonable option would be to replace the existing Sunday DAR program with a subsidized taxi
program. Under this option, passengers would still make advanced reservations for service with EDCTA
dispatchers. Rather than operating Sunday service, however, the Sunday passenger schedule would be
provided to the contracted taxi operator, which would then serve the scheduled requests. In addition to
paying the DAR fare to the taxi operator, the passenger would also sign a voucher filled in by the taxi
driver providing the details on the trip (including the passenger’s name). The taxi operator(s) would then
provide a monthly invoice to EDCTA for reimbursement of the difference between the collected fare and
a contracted amount per trip (which could vary by mileage). To be eligible for reimbursement, the
passenger name would have to appear on the passenger manifest provided by EDCTA.

As shown in Table 43, the current EDCTA Sunday DAR service is estimated to incur an operating cost of
$65,600 (including eight hours per day of dispatcher time). Subtracting an estimated $2,600 in annual
fares, this service required $63,000 per year in operating subsidy. The subsidy under a taxi subsidy
program can be estimated based on the typical trip length and the existing taxi fare structure. A review of
existing DAR information indicates that the average passenger trip length is approximately 6 miles. At the
existing typical taxi fare of $8 for the first 3.2 miles plus $2.50 for each additional mile, a 6 mile
passenger trip would incur a taxi fare of $15.50. Assuming that ridership under a taxi program would not
change from the current DAR ridership, a total of $18,800 in taxi fares would be required. Subtracting the
$2,600 in annual fares, the same ridership currently served by DAR could be served with $16,200 in
annual subsidy – a reduction of $46,800 per year.

A successful taxi subsidy program would require more administrative time than the current DAR
operating hours provide. While it is the responsibility of the taxi company to provide a high quality
service, it is the role of the administrator to provide information, monitor use, oversee safety, ensure good
use of public funds, and prepare reports. Below are specific administrative elements of the taxi voucher
program. EDCTA would be required to conduct the following:

    Prepare and administer a Request For Proposals for Service, and select one or more service
    provider(s).
    Prepare weekly passenger manifests.
    Review and approve monthly invoice requests, and check ride eligibility.
    Ensure that service providers maintain the required insurance, vehicle inspection records, and driver
    records.

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                  Western El Dorado County
Page 132                                                                           2008 Short Range Transit Plan
    Monitor service providers.
    Prepare reports for the EDCTA Board as well as for FTA.
    Oversee a driver training program.
    Implement the marketing program.
    Respond to passenger complaints.

In order to participate in a subsidy program, a taxi operator would need to meet numerous requirements,
including record keeping necessary to comply with FTA requirements. In addition, the operator would
need to enter into an agreement with EDCTA guaranteeing a reasonable response time, a limited number
of missed trips, and other service standards. The organization’s vehicles would need to be clean, reliable,
and safe. In addition, some drivers would need to undergo passenger assistance training to ensure that
passengers with disabilities were handled in a proper and courteous manner. All persons working in a
public transit “safety sensitive” position funded wholly or partially through the Federal Transit
Administration are required to comply with FTA’s drug and alcohol testing program, including random
testing for drug and alcohol use. This would include both the drivers providing taxi voucher trips, as well
as the dispatchers and mechanics maintaining the vehicles. Any contract between the EDCTA and a taxi
operator would need to include adherence requirements to ensure compliance with drug and alcohol
testing.

The crucial element in a successful taxi subsidy program is the participation of a competent and
professional taxi operator willing to undertake the steps listed above to comply with the additional
regulations, and to work in a cooperative spirit with the transit agency to “make the program work.”
While there are many examples of successful taxi subsidy programs, there are also many examples of
such programs that have been terminated.

The advantages of this alternative are the potential for substantial cost savings and subsidy is expended
only when service is being provided. These cost savings could potentially be used to expand the hours or
capacity of the service to better serve Sunday ridership. It also provides a great deal of flexibility, as the
program can be adjusted over time to reflect changes in demand and funding levels. However, 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.

Modifications to Placerville Routes to Serve New Developments

A review of current plans for new development indicates that many of these developments are located
along existing transit routes (such as the project planned along Broadway in Placerville) or would be
served by other potential alternatives (such as the projects along Green Valley Road in El Dorado Hills).
Minor route changes or new stops to address the transit needs of these developments can be addressed
through the development review process. However, there are two developments in the Placerville area
that merit evaluation in this planning study:

    A new subdivision entitled The Ridge at Orchard Hill is currently under development west of Mallard
    Lane and north of Green Valley Road. This project will include homes specifically for Seniors and is
    also adjacent to an existing subdivision on the east side of Mallard Lane. While there is an existing
    request only stop at the Phoenix Center to the south, this nearest stop is roughly a half-mile walk from
    this new subdivision. EDCTA could establish another request only stop near the intersection of
    Mallard Lane and Pintail Lane that would serve both subdivisions. It appears that there is adequate
    schedule time available to accommodate the occasional request for service to this stop.



Western El Dorado County                                                       LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                            Page 133
    An Eskaton Senior Community is currently under construction on Blairs Lane south of Broadway.
    The project will ultimately consist of 113 single-family units, 64 condominiums, 60 assisted living
    apartments, and 40 special care units. Serving this project would require roughly 1.1 additional miles
    of travel on the local Placerville Route (either in the eastbound or westbound direction), adding
    approximately 3 minutes running time. Considering the demand for fixed-route service generated by
    Eskaton Lincoln Manor on Mother Lode Drive (an average of 8 passenger per day generated by 100
    apartment units), service to the new Eskaton site would generate on the order of 15 passenger-trips
    per day.

Temporary Changes to Local Routes to Address Construction Delays

The EDCTA local routes have been designed to efficiently transfer passengers between routes at “timed
transfer” points, such as the Missouri Flat Transfer Center. While designed to typically maintain the
service schedule, long delays on any one route can cause delays throughout the system as buses are held
to allow transfers from the delayed route. In particular, the “interlining” of vehicles between the Folsom
Lake College, Diamond Springs, and Cameron Park routes results in delays throughout these routes when
one route is delayed. Construction delays at locations without easy alternate routes (such as the Missouri
Flat Interchange reconstruction project) can create operational and service quality issues that last for
months if not years.

While it is not appropriate or cost effective to design new permanent routes to address relatively short-
term construction delays, it may be beneficial to reconfigure how the routes are operated in order to
reduce the impacts of construction delays on the overall system. For example, in the current situation
where the Folsom Lake College route is impacted by delays, this route could be operated separately using
a dedicated vehicle, allowing the other routes to maintain the published schedule. The Folsom Lake
College route could then be temporarily operated on a higher frequency schedule. This service would
incur a substantial operating cost and would not meet productivity standards, but would allow the overall
system to operate more effectively minimizing the impact of construction delays on transit passengers.
Optimally, EDCTA should be involved in prior coordination for major construction projects along transit
routes, and the incremental costs of service changes necessary to address construction delays could be
funded as part of the construction project budget.

IRON POINT CONNECTOR SERVICE ALTERNATIVES
Extend IPC to Sunrise Light Rail Station

One option for the IPC (IPC) would be to extend the route from its current terminus at Iron Point Station
(in Western Folsom) to the Sunrise Station. This would add 10.3 miles to the length of the route and
would require approximately an additional 25 minutes per round-trip to serve. As there is not this amount
of available running time in the current schedule, making this extension would require either (1) an
additional bus on the route; (2) dropping service in Folsom to Folsom Lake College and Kaiser; or (3)
reducing service frequency from every 120 minutes to every 150 minutes.

This extension of service, moreover, does not increase regional connections. While there is increased light
rail service west of Sunrise (every 15 minutes rather than every 30 minutes), every IPC run already makes
a direct connection with a light rail departure. Moreover, at present the other stops in Folsom are operated
on the eastbound run only. If they were still to be served with this extension, the trip from El Dorado
County to these stops would require 15 additional minutes on the bus. At present, roughly one third of
current IPC ridership is generated by these other Folsom stops. Given the costs that would be incurred
under any option, the negative impact on existing ridership, and the negligible benefits that would be
provided, this alternative is not considered further.

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                 Western El Dorado County
Page 134                                                                          2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Shift IPC Schedule Mid-Day to Better Serve Commute Times

At present, the IPC schedule does not conveniently serve typical work schedules for El Dorado County
residents working in the Rancho Cordova area. For example, a survey of Franchise Tax Board (FTB)
employees conducted in December of 2007 indicates that the most prevalent work start time is 7:00 AM
(23 percent of all employees) and the prevalent work end times are 4:30 PM (29 percent) and 5:30 PM
(22 percent). The existing IPC schedule is not convenient for Rancho Cordova employees working the
typical 7:00 AM to 4:30 PM work schedule. In particular, an employee leaving work at 4:30 PM has a
first opportunity to catch an eastbound light rail train to Folsom at 4:55 PM, arriving at Iron Point at 5:23
PM. However, they would then need to wait until 6:27 PM for the next departure of the IPC route,
arriving in El Dorado Hills at 6:53 – almost two and a half hours after leaving work. If IPC service were
not provided during one hour mid-day (such as between 1:40 PM and 2:40 PM, when ridership is
relatively low), a 5:27 departure from Iron Point could be provided.

Under this schedule, the existing 5:40 PM departure from Missouri Flat Transfer Center would be
dropped from the schedule, reducing the number of daily runs from seven to six. This shift would also
affect existing passengers on the 1:40 PM and 3:40 PM IPC runs, including a few passengers per day
using the service to travel eastbound from Folsom Lake College, Kaiser, and El Dorado Hills. Overall,
however, this alternative would result in a slight increase in ridership. (While it is typically not beneficial
to provide an inconsistent schedule, with a two-hour headway on the existing IPC route this is not an
important consideration).

Add a 6:40 AM Run and/or a 4:40 PM Run on Iron Point Connector

The current IPC schedule allows El Dorado residents to get to Rancho Cordova employment sites by
catching the first IPC run (departing Missouri Flat Transfer Center at 5:40 AM and El Dorado Hills at
6:10 AM) and transferring to light rail at 6:33 AM, arriving in Rancho Cordova a few minutes before 7:00
AM. This work start time is the most prevalent, when 27 percent of surveyed FTB employees start work.
In comparison, only 11 percent of FTB employees report an 8:00 AM start time. Based on these factors
and the existing ridership, this option would generate ridership of approximately 1,000 passengers per
year.

As discussed above, a 4:40 PM IPC run would better serve some commuters. Rather than shifting the
schedule, another option would be to add an additional run. This option would increase ridership by
roughly 1,300 passenger-trips per year.

Either of these options would require the operation of an additional bus. With the required additional
deadhead time, either run would cost $54,800 per year. Subtracting the estimated farebox income, the
additional annual operating subsidy would equal $52,600 for the additional morning run or $52,000 for
the additional afternoon run.

Serve Red Hawk Casino

The Red Hawk Casino currently under construction along US 50 east of Shingle Springs will be a major
new employment center in the existing IPC service corridor. Due to the construction of a new
interchange, it would be very easy for the IPC route to be modified to provide direct service to the casino,
adding roughly 1 mile of route length and 3-4 minutes of travel time to the existing route. As this running
time is available in the current schedule, only the additional mileage-related costs would be incurred,
increasing annual operating costs by roughly $3,300 per year.



Western El Dorado County                                                       LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                            Page 135
Ridership that would be generated by this stop can be estimated by a comparison with the similar Thunder
Valley Casino north of Roseville. This facility is very similar in size (85,000 square feet of floor area
versus a planned 88,000 square feet at Red Hawk). It is currently served by the Placer County Transit
Rocklin-Lincoln route, providing hourly service in both directions from roughly 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM.
Over the most recent 12-month period, a total of 38,936 transit passenger trips were served. (It should be
noted that several years of service were operated before this ridership level was reached.) Adjusting for
the reduced service frequency and span of service provided by the IPC, ridership generated by the Red
Hawk Casino is estimated to equal 20,000 per year. These new riders would generate roughly $43,200 in
farebox revenues, yielding a net reduction in operating subsidy of $39,900. The primary generator of
ridership to the Thunder Valley Casino (as well as other Indian gaming facilities in the region) is reported
to be employment, rather than gaming customers.

An alternative means of achieving a transit connection to the new casino would be for the casino operator
to provide a shuttle service to an existing IPC stop (such as at the Ponderosa Park-and-Ride), where
passengers could transfer. Given that this option would be substantially less convenient for EDCTA
passengers and that the subsidy required to operate the IPC could be significantly reduced, direct service
to the Casino on the IPC route is preferable.

Changes to Kaiser Permanente Service within Folsom

The access drives at the existing Kaiser Permanente Hospital on Iron Point Road are not well designed for
bus service. As a result, the IPC (as well as the Folsom Stage) only serves a stop directly on Iron Point
Drive, which requires passengers to walk roughly 600 feet up an incline to the front door. Under this
alternative, EDCTA would work with the City of Folsom to encourage improved bus access to this
existing facility.

In addition, Kaiser is currently constructing a major new facility at Bidwell Street and Broadstone
Parkway. Once completed, the IPC should serve a stop at this new facility.

COMMUTER SERVICE ALTERNATIVES
Curtailing Sacramento Commuter Service

Like transit systems in other outlying counties and cities in the Sacramento Region (such as Yolo County,
Yuba/Sutter Counties, Placer County, and Roseville), EDCTA provides an extensive commuter service to
downtown Sacramento, with no funding contribution from Sacramento City or County. This is despite the
fact that these commuter services provide very significant benefits both to the employment end of the trip
(in terms of traffic and parking reductions and increased access to workforce) as well as the residential
end of the trip (in terms of improved quality of life, commute cost savings, and environmental benefits).
In light of this, and the increasing demands on public budgets, it is appropriate to consider means of
reducing the Commuter Service. As discussed below, three alternatives are considered: terminating
service at the Sunrise Light Rail station, terminating service in Folsom (at the Iron Point Light Rail
Station), and terminating service at the El Dorado/Sacramento County Line.

Terminating Service at Sunrise

Providing service to the Sunrise Light Rail station would allow access directly to Light Rail service on 15
minute headways. To evaluate the impact of shortening the service on ridership, it is useful to consider
the quality of service that would be provided. The quality of service would be impacted in the following
three ways:


LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                 Western El Dorado County
Page 136                                                                          2008 Short Range Transit Plan
    Vehicle Travel Time – At present, the Sacramento Commuter service provides about a 46 minute
    travel time in the peak period from El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride and downtown Sacramento (9th
    and P Streets) in the morning, and a 58 minute return trip in the evening. If service were to be
    shortened to Sunrise (the current terminus of every-15-minute light rail service), the transit running
    time from El Dorado Hills to Sunrise would be roughly 22 minutes (in either direction). The light rail
    running time from Sunrise to 8th & O Streets is 35 minutes eastbound and 36 minutes westbound.
    Including 5 minutes for the transfer, total travel time would be approximately 62 minutes in both
    directions, or an increase of 16 minutes in the morning and 4 minutes in the evening. Due to the
    inconvenience and uncertainty introduced into a transit trip by a transfer, moreover, passengers
    typically perceive transfer time as more of a detriment to service than simply the clock time. (It is
    worth noting that Sac RT plans to provide limited stop service on the Gold Line once the Watt
    Avenue grade separation is completed in late 2009, which will reduce the in-vehicle running time on
    some departures by roughly 8 minutes.)

    Walk Time to Work – The existing Commuter Service serves a total of 20 bus stops in downtown
    Sacramento, designated over the years to be convenient to passenger work sites. In comparison, the
    Gold Line light rail serves 11 stops in downtown Sacramento. As a result, many passengers would be
    required to walk several additional blocks to and from their work locations.

    Quality of the Journey – Commuter Service passengers are currently provided with a direct trip
    between El Dorado Hills and the downtown Sacramento area, allowing an uninterrupted period to
    work, read or sleep. In comparison, light rail serves 17 stops between Sunrise Boulevard and 8th and
    O Streets, requiring passengers to deal with the comings and goings of other passengers. This is
    typically considered to be a substantial detriment to the quality of a transit trip, particularly for
    passengers who have the option of commuting in their own car.

Table 44 presents an analysis of ridership impacts associated with these potential alternatives, based on
the most recent available research regarding the impacts of these service factors on ridership. This
“elasticity analysis” is based on the principals of micro-economics, evaluating the proportionate change in
ridership that corresponds to a proportionate change in service quality (such as in-vehicle travel time)
based on an “elasticity factor” observed for similar changes in service quality in similar settings. The
negative value of the elasticity factor reflects that the service quality factor and ridership are negatively
proportionate – as in vehicle travel time increases, for example, transit ridership decreases. Further an
elasticity factor of -0.50 indicates that, a one percent increase in vehicle travel time would result in a -0.50
percent decrease in ridership. As indicated, this alternative is forecast to reduce overall ridership by 53
percent, resulting in an annual Commuter Service ridership of approximately 61,000 one-way passenger-
trips per year.

The scope of the service required to serve this ridership level would be reduced from current levels, both
due to the reduction in running time to serve trips only as far west as Sunrise Boulevard, and also due to
the lower seating capacity needed to accommodate the remaining passengers. Total annual vehicle-miles
(including deadhead miles) are estimated to be reduced by roughly 70 percent, while annual vehicle-hours
would be reduced by roughly 77 percent. Considering that some additional runs per day could be served
by cycling the buses on the shorter route, the same span of service could be provided by three fewer buses
in the Commuter Service fleet. Overall, annual operating costs would be reduced by approximately
$622,000 per year. Subtracting the loss of roughly $307,000 in annual farebox revenues, the total impact
of this alternative on EDCTA’s annual operating subsidy requirements would be a reduction of $315,200.
A key issue with regard to this alternative is its impact on EDCTA’s overall farebox recovery ratio. The
Transportation Development Act requires that, overall, EDCTA maintain a ratio of farebox revenues to
total operating costs of 10 percent. As roughly two-thirds of EDCTA’s current farebox revenues are
generated by the Commuter Service, a significant reduction in this revenue has the potential to drop the

Western El Dorado County                                                       LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                            Page 137
                TABLE 44: Ridership Analysis of
                Commuter Route Reductions
                                                                                         Terminate
                                                                            Terminate     at Iron
                                                                            At Sunrise     Point
                Existing Ridership                                           129,800      129,800
                In-Vehicle Travel Time
                   Existing                                                    52                52
                   With Alternative                                            62                68
                   Effective Impact of Transfer                                10                10
                   Effective Travel Time                                       72                78

                     Elasticity Value                                         -0.78         -0.78
                Out-of-Vehicle Travel Time
                  Existing                                                     5.00          5.00
                  With Alternative                                            10.00         10.00
                     Elasticity Value                                         -0.40         -0.40
                Factor: Quality of the Journey                                0.80              0.80
                Ridership with Alternative                                   61,000        57,000
                   Percent Change                                             -53%          -56%
                Note: Assumes no change in effective total fare per trip.
                Sources
                    Forecasting Incremental Ridership Impacts from Bus Route Service Changes,
                    Ecosometrics, 1991.
                    TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, Transportation
                    Research Board, 2003




ratio below this state requirement. An evaluation of this ratio with termination of Commuter Service at
Sunrise Boulevard is shown in Table 45. As indicated, this alternative (exclusive of other potential
alternatives) would reduce the overall farebox return ratio from an estimated 18 percent to 13.3 percent.
While a significant reduction, the farebox return ratio would still remain at acceptable levels.

Another factor is whether the Sac RT Gold Line Light Rail service has the passenger capacity to
accommodate the additional passenger load that would be added west of the Sunrise Station by this
alternative. Considering the existing typical peak passenger loads carried by the Commuter Service
(approximately 160 passengers) and the proportion of this ridership that would remain on the service with
the alternative, this option would add roughly 75 passengers per hour to the ridership on Light Rail. Sac
RT staff indicates that there is adequate capacity on the Gold Line service to accommodate this additional
ridership. Capacity of the light rail service, moreover, is planned to be expanded in late 2009 once the
grade separation at Watt Avenue is completed.


LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                               Western El Dorado County
Page 138                                                                                        2008 Short Range Transit Plan
      TABLE 45: Evaluation of Systemwide Farebox Ratio
      With Commuter Route Reduction
                                                                  Terminate At         Terminate at
                                                  Existing          Sunrise             Iron Point

      Impact of Alternative
        Farebox Revenues                              --            -$306,600            -$324,500
        Operating Costs                               --            -$621,800            -$686,400

          Farebox Revenues                       $858,300           $551,700             $533,800
          Operating Costs                       $4,764,000         $4,142,200           $4,077,600

      Farebox Return Ratio                         18.0%              13.3%                13.1%



Terminating Service in Folsom (Iron Point Light Rail Station)

If service were to be shortened to Iron Point, the bus travel time from El Dorado Hills would be 17
minutes (in either direction). Light Rail travel time is approximately 56 minutes westbound and 45
minutes eastbound, resulting in a total transit travel time of 62 minutes eastbound and 73 minutes
westbound. Comparing to the Commuter Service option, this change in service would add 16 minutes in
the morning and 15 minutes in the evening. (The limited stop service to be implemented in late 2009
would reduce these figures by 8 minutes.) Compared with the six stops between El Dorado Hills and P
and 9th Streets on the Commuter Service, under this option a passenger would travel through 19 stops.

An evaluation of ridership impacts of this alternative, as shown in Table 44, indicates that this alternative
would reduce existing Commuter ridership by 56 percent (slightly more than the Sunrise alternative).
Operating costs would be reduced by $686,400, or 83 percent. Subtracting $324,500 in reduced farebox
revenues, net subsidy would be reduced by $361,900. As with the previous alternative, this option as
shown in Table 45 would reduce the systemwide farebox return ratio substantially (to 13.1 percent), but
would still provide a ratio that attains the minimum Transportation Development Act (TDA) standard.
Roughly 70 passengers per hour in the peak direction would be added to the Gold Line Light Rail
ridership, which can be accommodated on the existing service.

Terminating Service at the El Dorado/Sacramento County Line

A final option considered for the reduction of Sacramento Commuter service would be to simply
terminate service at a new transit center near the El Dorado/Sacramento County line (such as along White
Rock Road). This has the policy advantage of ensuring that El Dorado County transit resources are used
wholly within El Dorado County. Presumably, another transit provider such as Sac RT would provide
transit service west of this new transit center. The additional transfer required of passengers by this option
(probably in addition to a second transfer to Light Rail) would reduce ridership by at least an additional
25 percent below the previous alternative. The El Dorado Short Range Transit Plan study can only
address decision making regarding transit resources under the control of El Dorado County organizations.
As this option would presuppose transit funding decisions on the part of others outside the prevue of this
document, it is not appropriate to consider it further as part of this study.

Western El Dorado County                                                      LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                           Page 139
Changes in Commuter Service Runs

Additional service has been requested as follows:

    A new AM run filling the “hole” in the schedule between Route 8 (arriving at P and 9th Streets at
    7:24 AM) and Route 10 (arriving at the same location at 8:18 AM). This route could serve the new
    Bass Lake Park-and-Ride, reducing parking demand at the El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride. Based on
    existing ridership and an elasticity analysis, this new route would increase overall ridership by an
    estimated 6,000 passengers per year. With the associated increase in fare revenues, it would require a
    $9,300 increase in annual operating subsidy.

    In the PM period, service could be provided departing P and 9th Streets around 4:00 PM, filling the
    hole in the schedule between the 3:35 PM departure of Route 8 and the 4:18 PM departure of Route 5.
    Net impact on ridership is forecast to equal 4,500 passenger-trips per year. Operating subsidy would
    be increased by roughly $15,900 per year.

On the other hand, the Route 10, PM run is currently carrying roughly 7 passengers per day. This last run
of the day (departing at 6:15 PM) benefits the overall service by providing passengers with some
flexibility to work a bit late or accomplish an errand in downtown Sacramento without missing the last
bus. The net impact of eliminating this run would therefore be more than simply the existing passengers
on this specific run, and is estimated to equal 3,300 passenger-trips per year. This option would reduce
overall subsidy requirements by an estimated $21,300 per year.

Commuter Service to El Dorado Hills Employment Sites for Sacramento County Residents

Total employment (total number of jobs) in the El Dorado Hills area has grown to over 6,500. In addition,
information received from the major commuters indicates that the large proportion (on the order of 50
percent) of employees live in Sacramento County – and an even higher proportion of lower-wage workers
(more likely to make use of a transit service in this setting) live in Sacramento County.

At present, service for Sacramento County residents commuting to El Dorado Hills is very scant. While
two AM and three PM existing Sacramento Commuter buses are operated with an “open door” in the
“reverse” direction, the first of these services does not get to the El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride
eastbound until 8:15 AM. In addition, the IPC provides eastbound service departing Iron Point at 6:27
AM and arriving at El Dorado Hills at 6:53 AM. Once a commuter reaches the El Dorado Hills Park-and-
Ride, they can currently only complete their commute if they happen to work within walking distance.

One option would be to extend one or more of the Reverse Commute runs to other El Dorado Hills
employment areas, such as the El Dorado Hills Business Park, possibly on an on-request basis, and to also
serve the Iron Point Light Rail Station. However, the first Reverse Commute run in the morning does not
get to El Dorado Hills until 8:15 AM (after most work start times). This would also delay other
passengers using the Reverse Commute service. Therefore, this option is not considered further.

Another option would be to provide a dedicated service. One bus could be used to operate hourly service
from the Iron Point Light Rail Station to the major employers in El Dorado Hills. A reasonable schedule
would be to operate three runs in the AM commute period (providing connections to Light Rail at 5:30
AM, 6:30 AM, and 7:30 AM) and three runs in the PM commute period (providing connections at 4:30
PM, 5:30 PM and 6:30 PM). This service would require an additional vehicle, and would increase annual
operating costs by $186,000 per year.



LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                Western El Dorado County
Page 140                                                                         2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Transit ridership generated by high-tech employers in suburban settings in other areas is disappointingly
low. For instance, transit services to such areas in Lincoln, Roseville, and Vacaville have all generated
very low ridership levels. This can be attributed to several factors, including the non-traditional work
shifts (such as 6 AM to 6 PM shifts), the dispersal of employee residences over a wide area, the free and
plentiful availability of parking at the worksite, the relative lack of traffic congestion in the “off peak”
direction, and the variability in work shifts associated with changes in demand levels. Given these factors
and the estimated number of El Dorado Hills employees living along the US 50 corridor in Sacramento
County (per the SACOG SACMET model), it is estimated that this service would generate roughly
11,900 passenger-trips per year. Assuming a fare structure similar to IPC, these riders would generate
approximately $25,700 in annual revenues, resulting in a subsidy requirement of $160,300 per year.

A final option to serve this transit “market” would be to implement one or more of the other alternatives
discussed above. For instance, the local connection issue could be addressed through implementation of
the El Dorado Hills local service. In addition, expanding IPC to hourly service along with a local service
could yield hourly service availability between Iron Point and El Dorado Hills Business Park. While this
would require a transfer, it would be a sufficient level of service to adequately test the potential for this
transit “market” without additional cost.

Reinstatement of El Dorado County Transit Authority Transit Service to Rancho Cordova

Until July 2006, EDCTA operated a commuter bus service from El Dorado County to the majority of
employer sites in Rancho Cordova, consisting of two AM and two PM runs per day. Ridership in FY
2004/05 totaled only 2,935 one-way passenger-trips, which generated only 2.8 passenger-trips per
vehicle-hour of service, and a farebox return ratio of only 6 percent. Due to this poor ridership (typically
two to four passengers per run), the service was discontinued.

The US 50 Corridor Transit Plan identified a range of reasons why the ridership on the service was not
higher. Some had to do with the quality of the transit service, notably the limited number of departures in
the morning (two runs, effectively serving a 6:00 AM and 8:00 AM start time) and the ride quality of the
older buses used in this service. However, the larger issue was that the “competing” travel mode – the
private automobile – provides a more convenient overall trip, as (1) extensive free parking is available at
employment sites, (2) overall traffic congestion on the US 50 corridor between El Dorado County and
Rancho Cordova is not sufficient to discourage auto use (3) auto drivers are not tied to a fixed transit
schedule and (4) there is no need to make the inconvenient transfer at a Park-and-Ride lot. As a result, the
proportion of commuters from El Dorado County to Rancho Cordova employment sites using transit was
found to be only 0.3 percent, while the proportion traveling to work in downtown Sacramento on the
EDCTA transit service was found to be a full 40 percent. In addition, surveys at the FTB indicate that
roughly 5 percent of total employees live in El Dorado County.

Since the cessation of service, the potential demand for EDCTA service has been increased by additional
development in the area. In particular, two new seven story buildings have been built at the FTB campus
in Rancho Cordova, resulting in an increase of approximately 3,000 new employees. Overall,
employment in the area previously served by the EDCTA Rancho Cordova route has climbed by roughly
20 percent. While it can also be argued that demand has been increased by the rise in gas prices in recent
years, there is little evidence that this has significantly shifted commute travel modes, particularly for the
economic level typical of Rancho Cordova employees. Along with revisions to schedules and
improvements in vehicles, it is reasonable to assume that a new Rancho Cordova route would generate 30
percent higher ridership than previously.




Western El Dorado County                                                      LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                           Page 141
A service similar to that previously operated (two scheduled trips in the AM and in the PM peak periods,
using two vehicles) at current unit costs would incur a cost of roughly $193,100 per year. At a ridership of
approximately 3,800 passenger-trips per year, $8,700 in fares would be generated, yielding a subsidy
requirement of $184,400 per year.

Serve a Rancho Cordova Stop on Some EDCTA Sacramento Downtown Commuter Runs

One reason for the inefficiency of EDCTA service to Rancho Cordova in the past is that substantial
vehicle running time (and costs) were expended on providing direct service to many employers dispersed
over a wide area. This was necessary because local collector service (that could be used to transfer
passengers to their destination) were limited to very few Regional Transit routes.

The City of Rancho Cordova, however, is currently developing plans for a comprehensive network of
local services (possibly including a streetcar route) that could provide the convenient “last mile” service
from a centralized transit station to the various major employers. This network is outlined in the 2006
City of Rancho Cordova Transit Master Plan and detailed implementation plans are currently being
developed. When available, the potential for EDCTA Downtown Commuter service to conveniently serve
a reasonable level of ridership in the Rancho Cordova area would be significantly improved.

Under this alternative, several existing Sacramento Commuter runs per day in each direction would divert
off of US 50 to serve a single stop in Rancho Cordova that requires a minimum amount of running time
and can provide good connections to the Rancho Cordova local services. Service to the Mather/Mills
Light Rail Station, could be accomplished while only adding 4 to 5 minutes of running time to Commuter
Routes. A reasonable minimum level of service would be to make this stop on runs passing through
Rancho Cordova at roughly 6:30 AM, 7:30 AM, 4:30 PM, and 5:30 PM. Assuming that driver shift times
are increased by 5 minutes on these runs, the total annual cost to serve this stop would be roughly $6,400
per year. The biggest drawback of this alternative would be the increase in in-vehicle travel time to the
passengers commuting downtown, which could result in a slight reduction in ridership. Given that it
would depend on the quality of local connecting transit service, it is not possible to estimate new ridership
that would be generated by this alternative. However, given the relatively small impact to the EDCTA
program, this alternative seems to have a high longer term potential, so long as plans to expand local
services in Rancho Cordova are realized.

Provide El Dorado County Transit Authority Service to Sacramento International Airport

At present, private shuttle service between El Dorado County and the Sacramento International Airport is
expensive (on the order of $110 round-trip). While it is possible to use EDCTA services either to
downtown Sacramento or to light rail to connect to existing Yolobus service to the airport for a much
lower overall fare, this option requires two to three hours of one-way travel time and the limited schedules
precludes service to many of the existing flights.

There have been public requests for direct EDCTA bus service, at a typical transit fare, directly to and
from the airport. However, for such a service to be viable it would need to be a very substantial expansion
of EDCTA services and would raise the following institutional issues:

    A reasonable service could be operated using two vehicles providing service roughly every two hours
    on a four-hour round-trip. Rather than providing door-to-door service the vehicles would serve Park-
    and-Ride lots and EDCTA transit centers and then proceed directly to the airport.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                 Western El Dorado County
Page 142                                                                          2008 Short Range Transit Plan
    A long span of service would be required. A review of the airport schedules indicates that flights
    arrive and depart around the clock. A reasonable span would be to serve flights departing as early as
    6:00 AM and as late as 12:00 AM. Given the time required to pass through security, service would
    need to begin operating at roughly 3:00 AM (to arrive at the airport by 5:00 AM), and would not end
    service until roughly 2:00 AM.

    With a spare, three additional vehicles would be required.

    Additional dispatch staff would be required, as this would substantially expand the hours of EDCTA
    operation.

    Assuming service is operated every day of the year, this service would cost approximately $1,500,000
    to operate. While passenger fares would help to offset this cost, if fares were set at typical public
    transit fare levels (such as a $5.00 one-way fare), the remaining public subsidy would still be very
    significant.

    Another option would be to offer very limited service. One van could operate 14 hours per day per
    year 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM. With this schedule, an airport service would cost approximately $460,000
    to operate. However, as it would only serve passengers with both flights between roughly 8:00 AM
    and 5:00 PM, it would not serve a substantial proportion of air travelers.

    This service would use public dollars to directly compete against existing private transportation
    providers.

Given these factors, this alternative does not appear consistent with the overall mission of the EDCTA,
and is not considered further.

RURAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES
South County Service

The ridership generated by the scheduled service to the South County Mt. Aukum/Somerset area has been
disappointing. Similar to the better-utilized Grizzly Flat service, the South County service consists of a
morning and evening run operated on one day per week (Tuesday). Though the service has been offered
for several years and efforts have been made to publicize the service in the South County community,
only 151 passenger-trips were served over the course of the last year (or roughly 3 one-way trips per day
of service). On a two-week recent sample period, two out of the three passengers were served along the
Grizzly Flat Route, indicating that ceasing service on South County would not completely eliminate their
service. While additional efforts to market the service can always be tried, EDCTA staff has already taken
the steps necessary to ensure that those South County residents most likely to use the service are already
aware of it, and additional marketing is not likely to generate significant increases in ridership.

One option would be simply to eliminate the South County service. This would reduce overall marginal
operating subsidy requirements by roughly $12,000 per year, eliminating service to the existing 151
annual passenger-trips (assuming no existing passengers shift to the Thursday Grizzly Flat service.)
Another option would be to eliminate the separate South County service and instead serve any requests
for service before or after service to Grizzly Flat. In order to not add to the in-vehicle ride time for
Grizzly Flat passengers, South County residents would be served before Grizzly Flat in the morning and
after Grizzly Flat in the afternoon. However, this would result in very long in-vehicle travel times: for
instance, a passenger at the Bistro/Fairplay stop would need to board the bus at roughly 8:10 AM for a
10:00 AM arrival at Missouri Flat, and would depart Missouri Flat at 3:00 PM but not get off the bus until

Western El Dorado County                                                    LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                         Page 143
roughly 4:50 PM. Serving a single one-way ride request in South County would add approximately a half-
hour of running time and 12 miles to the Grizzly Flat route, incurring an operating cost of $77. Compared
with the recommended service efficiency goal of no more than $35 in operating subsidy per passenger-
trip, serving a single rider would not be efficient. A travel group of three passengers or more, however,
would attain this standard. One alternative that would provide at least a minimum opportunity for transit
service therefore would be to offer service before and after Grizzly Flat service (on Thursdays) for groups
of three or more. Requests would need to be made at least 2 days in advance, as the driver’s schedule
would need to be adjusted for an earlier work start time and later work end time.

Provision of Service between Georgetown and Auburn

Residents of the northwestern portion of the County, including the communities of Georgetown, Cool,
and Pilot Hill, tend to travel to Auburn for medical appointments, pharmacy visits, and other needs.
Similar to the Grizzly Flat service, a service could be established operating one day a week at least
initially, with a single morning run and a single afternoon run. A van would deadhead to Georgetown and
then provide service through Cool (and Pilot Hill on request) to Auburn and North Auburn before
returning to the operating base. The afternoon service would operate in the opposite direction. This route
requires roughly 2 hours to operate per trip, with a minimum travel distance of 53 miles.

The long deadhead travel distance from the EDCTA operating base makes the operation cost of direct
EDCTA service in this area inefficient. Rather, the most cost-effective means of providing this service
would be to contract with an Auburn-based public transit program. Placer County funds a transit service
in this region and is currently going out to bid for a new contractor. To ensure that the best contractor is
identified and to comply with regulations, EDCTA would release a Request For Proposals for this service
and fully consider other potential service contractors.

Applying typical Coordinated Transportation Service Agency operating costs this service would incur an
annual operating cost (including provision of a van) of approximately $14,000. Ridership, based on actual
ridership for similar services in rural portions of Northern California (including Grizzly Flat) adjusted to
reflect population characteristics, is estimated to equal approximately 1,400 one-way passenger-trips per
year or 27 per day. Subtracting an estimated $2,700 in annual passenger fares, a subsidy of $12,300
would be required.

Provide Service between South Lake Tahoe and Placerville

With the cessation of Greyhound service several years ago, the public transportation service available for
trips between the Placerville area and the South Tahoe portion of El Dorado County is limited to the once-
a-day Amtrak Thruway service. In the past, this has created a transportation problem for persons in the
Tahoe area that must access County services only available at the County seat in Placerville, such as those
required to travel to Juvenile Court in Placerville and to transport some mental health department clients
between South Lake Tahoe and Placerville. However, the El Dorado County Probation Department
indicates that there is now both a Juvenile Hall and Juvenile Court in South Lake Tahoe as well as
Placerville, so the need for transportation between the two areas is minimal (perhaps one time a month).
El Dorado County Health Department already owns one van which can be used to transport clients
between Eastern and Western El Dorado County and may be better served as a recipient of the van grant
program discussed in the vehicle alternatives section. Given that providing service even twice a day one
day a week would incur an annual operating cost of approximately $34,000, this option would not be
cost-effective and is therefore not considered further. However, there may be options to partner with
other jurisdictions along the corridor (such as the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency) to expand intercity
public transit options that could result in local funding requirements more consistent with the needs
generated in Western El Dorado County.

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                 Western El Dorado County
Page 144                                                                          2008 Short Range Transit Plan
DIAL-A-RIDE/SAC-MED ALTERNATIVES
Expanded Dial-A-Ride Service

As the population of the study area increases, and as the population ages, demand for DAR service will
increase. In addition, a review of ridership logs demonstrates that no additional capacity exists during
peak periods. As such, a reasonable alternative is to add approximately 12 vehicle service hours per
weekday (increasing the peak vehicles in operation by two) to meet existing and potential future demand.

Under this service alternative, the daily service vehicle service hours would be allocated by operations
staff depending upon anticipated needs. For example, staff could operate one vehicle throughout the
service day to “distribute” ridership over the entire day, or staff might find it more beneficial to use two
buses during the peak periods. Either way, this alternative assumes that operations staff is best able to
determine how these additional resources would ultimately be used. As presented in Table 43 above, this
alternative would increase annual vehicle service miles by 68,200 and vehicle service hours by 3,000.
This would require an additional $261,700 in operating funds. Annual ridership under this alternative is
anticipated to be 7,300 one-way passenger-trips and passenger fare revenues are anticipated to be
$14,400. The resulting annual subsidy would be $247,300.

It should also be noted that other alternatives expanding scheduled services could reduce the existing and
future demand for DAR services. In particular, establishment of a fixed-route service in El Dorado Hills
and/or provision of hourly service along the US 50 corridor within the County could reduce the need for
time-consuming (and thus costly) DAR service to the western end of the County.

Potential Changes to SAC-MED Program

At present, the two-day-a-week SAC-MED service occasionally has capacity constraints, requiring
potential passengers to shift their day of an appointment or find other transportation. There are three
potential means of addressing this issue:

    Limit Eligibility – The service is currently available to all. A review of driver logs for several days of
    service indicates that roughly 60 percent of passengers are seniors (with or without disabilities), 40
    percent are non-seniors with disabilities, and few if any passengers are neither senior nor disabled.
    There is thus little benefit in restricting use of the service to seniors or disabled only.

    Transfer Passengers to Other Transit Providers – Another option would be to transport El Dorado
    County residents as far as a common transfer point with other paratransit service providers. For
    instance, service could be provided to the Iron Point Light Rail Station, where passengers would
    transfer to either the Folsom DAR program or to the Paratransit, Inc. program providing service to the
    remainder of Sacramento County. This option would require passengers to make reservations both on
    the EDCTA SAC-MED service as well as on the connecting service in both directions. Given
    capacity constraints on the various services, it would be difficult to arrange connecting round-trips.
    Transfers for wheelchair users often requires ten minutes or more, which would tend to reduce any
    savings in travel time for EDCTA. Moreover, any delay at the medical office could cause passengers
    to miss their connections, either stranding them at the transfer point or requiring EDCTA to delay
    service (and incur additional cost). For these reasons, this option is not considered to be feasible.




Western El Dorado County                                                      LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                           Page 145
    Restrict Service Area – With the growth in medical facilities in Folsom, it may be possible for some
    existing SAC-MED passengers in the future to meet their needs closer to El Dorado County. Service
    could potentially be restricted geographically, such as to Folsom and Rancho Cordova only.
    However, some existing passengers must travel to facilities only available in other areas such as
    Carmichael or Sacramento, including UC Davis Medical Center and state rehabilitation facilities.

    Expand Service – Service could also be expanded, such as by providing SAC-MED on an additional
    day per week. This option would increase operating costs by $22,800 per year and is estimated to
    serve 360 passenger-trips per year (or 180 round-trips). Subtracting the roughly $1,500 in annual
    fares, this option would increase operating subsidy requirements by $21,300.

Volunteer Transportation Program

Another means of expanding mobility in a community is through a volunteer transportation program.
There are several good examples of volunteer programs in the region:

    Senior Services, Inc. is a non-profit organization in Amador County that assists seniors throughout
    the County, including a transportation program called “Common Grounds,” which uses volunteers
    with private cars to transport clients locally for medical trips. Currently, the program has ten
    volunteer drivers. A lift-equipped van is also 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.

    The Amador Sheriff’s Posse Volunteer Transportation program is a senior outreach program operated
    by the Sheriff’s Department, with eight volunteers. Volunteers either use their own private vehicles or
    a donated sedan to provide medical trips. The costs of operating the vehicle are absorbed by the
    County Sheriff’s Department budget. While they receive calls daily for requested trips, they are only
    able to provide between two and four trips per week. In addition to seniors, they receive trip requests
    from Adult Protective Services and other social service programs.

    Nevada County’s Telecare program is a non-profit transportation provider which has a DAR service
    within the County, but relies on volunteers for long-distance trips outside of the service area. The
    client is charged $0.55 per mile. The driver is reimbursed at $0.40 per mile, which more or less pays
    for the vehicle cost. Telecare receives $0.15 per mile for administrative costs, which includes
    dispatching and managing the volunteers. This service is therefore paid for by the client, with the
    volunteer donating his or her time. There have been as many as twelve volunteer drivers in recent
    years, but currently there are six. Virtually all of the trips provided by the volunteer program are for
    medical appointments primarily in Roseville or Sacramento.

Volunteer programs are particularly effective for social service program site transportation (such as to and
from a senior center), as it is easier to motivate drivers to provide transportation to those that they already
know through the program. It is important to note that a volunteer transportation program is typically not
completely “free” to a public transit agency, due to the staff time needed to organize the program. In
particular, there is a need for ongoing efforts to recruit new drivers, as there is typically a high rate of
turnover in volunteers. Another issue is that of liability. Accidents on the part of volunteer drivers can
potentially make the organizing agency liable. It is therefore important for the agency to screen potential
volunteers for clean driving records and ongoing proof of insurance. This is also a reason why most
volunteer transportation programs are organized through a non-profit organization that already has an
ongoing volunteer program for other purposes, rather than through a public transit agency.
It should also be noted that the vehicle donation program discussed below could aid a volunteer
transportation program.

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                   Western El Dorado County
Page 146                                                                            2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Vanpool/Ridesharing Programs

Another, less expensive alternative for public transit service between Western El Dorado County and
Sacramento would be the establishment of a vanpooling program. An excellent nearby example of a
successful employee vanpooling program is operated by Placer County, California, in the
Roseville/Auburn area. Under such a program, public funds are used to lease 12- to 14-passenger vans, to
market the service, and to underwrite any initial operating losses. Over the long term, the operating costs
of these vans are paid for by passenger revenues. Van drivers would be “volunteer” employees in El
Dorado County who, in exchange for driving duties, ride for free and are typically allowed to use the van
for a set number of personal travel miles.

Vehicles would be stored overnight at driver’s homes. Fueling and maintenance could be provided on a
contractual basis with a local private garage.

This alternative has the advantage of being a relatively low cost, low risk, way of developing a transit
market in this corridor. The most cost-effective means of developing a vanpooling program while
minimizing the potential financial risk to the County would be through a third-party vehicle leasing firm
like VPSI, Inc. Vanpools are typically planned such that little or no long-term public operating subsidy is
required.

A minimum of eight potential passengers are typically considered to be required to sustain a vanpool, in
light of “turnover” in ridership. Successfully maintaining a vanpool requires either a strong effort on the
part of a major employer, or an ongoing continual effort on the part of a public agency to recruit new
passengers and ensure that adequate driver training, insurance, and vehicle maintenance is provided. It is
also worth noting that many of the major employers in the region, both in El Dorado County and along
the US 50 corridor in Sacramento County, already operate vanpool programs – a new vanpool program
organized by EDCTA would therefore be effectively “competing” with these established vanpool
programs. In light of the very limited potential market, this option does not appear to be feasible in
Western El Dorado County.

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. Not all of the indicators are applicable to each alternative; for instance, it is
impossible to consider the marginal one-way passenger-trips per hour of service for an alternative that
does not change the number of hours of service.

Figure 35 presents a simple comparison of the impact of the various alternatives on annual ridership
levels. As shown in this figure and Table 43, the highest potential for increasing ridership is the
Express/Community Route alternative (29,500 passengers), followed by service to Red Hawk Casino
(20,000), the El Dorado Hills Circulator (13,600) and the commuter service from Folsom to El Dorado
Hills (11,900). On the other hand, terminating the Sacramento Service at Sunrise or in Folsom would
reduce ridership by 68,800 and 72,800 passengers per year, respectively. The range of ridership impact
across the alternatives is quite wide, and other factors must be considered along with this measure before
deciding which alternatives are the most advantageous.

The impacts on annual operating subsidy requirements are shown in Figure 36. The greatest subsidy
increase would be required for the Express/Community Route ($565,800), followed by the El Dorado
Hills Circulator Route ($298,600) and the expansion of DAR service ($247,300). Subsidy reductions
associated with the reductions in the length of the Sacramento Commuter service would equal $361,900
for termination in Folsom or $315,200 for termination at Sunrise. Other alternatives that could result in

Western El Dorado County                                                     LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                          Page 147
                                                        FIGURE 35
                                              Annual Ridership by Alternative

                                                                                  Change in Annual Ridership

                                                            (80,000) (60,000) (40,000) (20,000)   -        20,000   40,000   60,000

                        El Dorado Hills Fixed Route Circulator

                                Express / Community Routes

                Combined Pville Express/ Pollock Pines Route

                               Add Earlier Pollock Pines Run

                Extend Local Route Service 1 Hour in Evening

                             Sunday Service on Local Routes

                               Sunday Taxi Voucher Program

                   Expand Placerville Route to Serve Eskaton

              Expand Placerville Route to Serve Mallard Lane



                                 Shift IPC Schedule Mid-Day

                                       Add 6:40 AM IPC Run

                                       Add 4:40 PM IPC Run
Alternative




                           Serve Foothill Oaks Casino on IPC



                     Terminate Commuter Service at Sunrise

                      Terminate Commuter Service in Folsom

                   Add Commuter AM Route Arriving 7:50 AM

                 Add Commuter PM Route Departing 3:50 PM

                       Eliminate Commuter Route 10 PM Run

              Provide Commuter Service from Folsom to EDH

              Reinstate Commuter Service to Rancho Cordova



                              Eliminate South County Service

                        Georgetown -- Cool -- Auburn Service

                 Provide Sac-Med Service One Day per Week

                                          Expand Dial A Ride



   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                                  Western El Dorado County
   Page 148                                                                                           2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                               FIGURE 36
                                                Annual Subsidy Requirement by Alternative
                                                                                Change in Annual Subsidy (In Thousands)


                                                             $(500) $(400) $(300) $(200) $(100) $-   $100   $200    $300   $400   $500      $600

                        El Dorado Hills Fixed Route Circulator

                                Express / Community Routes

                Combined Pville Express/ Pollock Pines Route

                               Add Earlier Pollock Pines Run

                Extend Local Route Service 1 Hour in Evening

                             Sunday Service on Local Routes

                               Sunday Taxi Voucher Program

                   Expand Placerville Route to Serve Eskaton

              Expand Placerville Route to Serve Mallard Lane



                                 Shift IPC Schedule Mid-Day

                                       Add 6:40 AM IPC Run

                                       Add 4:40 PM IPC Run
Alternative




                           Serve Foothill Oaks Casino on IPC



                     Terminate Commuter Service at Sunrise

                      Terminate Commuter Service in Folsom

                   Add Commuter AM Route Arriving 7:50 AM

                 Add Commuter PM Route Departing 3:50 PM

                       Eliminate Commuter Route 10 PM Run

              Provide Commuter Service from Folsom to EDH

              Reinstate Commuter Service to Rancho Cordova



                              Eliminate South County Service

                        Georgetown -- Cool -- Auburn Service

                 Provide Sac-Med Service One Day per Week

                                          Expand Dial A Ride




              Western El Dorado County                                                               LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
              2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                                    Page 149
relatively large reductions in subsidy requirements are the shift in mid-day Iron Point Commuter service
(-$47,000), replacement of Sunday DAR with a taxi voucher program (-$46,800), and service to Red
Hawk Casino (-$39,900).

Table 46 presents a series of “performance indicators” for the various service alternatives discussed above
and below:

    A key measure of the operating effectiveness of the alternatives is the marginal one-way passenger-
    trips per vehicle service hour. Of those alternatives that increase both vehicle-hours and ridership,
    the “best” alternative is adding a new AM Sacramento Commuter route which would carry 15.8
    passenger-trips per vehicle-hour. An alternative that reduces both vehicle-hours and passenger-trips
    also results in a positive value for this performance measure. As shown, terminating the Sacramento
    Commuter service at Sunrise would reduce ridership by 10.2 passenger-trips for every hour of service
    reduced, while the figure for termination in Folsom would equal 9.9. The negative value for this
    measure for the mid-day shift in IPC (-1.6) represents an increase in passenger-trips over a decrease
    in vehicle-hours. No value is provided for this measure for those options that do not include a change
    in vehicle-hours.

    Another key measure is the marginal subsidy per passenger-trip. This directly measures the key
    “input” to a public transit program (public subsidy funding) against the key “output” (ridership). The
    “best” values are the negative values or values approaching zero, representing a reduction in subsidy
    accompanied by an increase in ridership (the mid-day shift in IPC service, the service to Red Hawk
    Casino, the combination of Pollock Pines and Placerville Express routes, and the Placerville local
    route service to new areas). For those alternatives increasing both subsidy and ridership, a lower value
    represents a better alternative. The additional AM Sacramento Commuter run, for example, is
    relatively efficient, as it requires only $1.55 in additional subsidy per new passenger. Other relatively
    efficient alternatives in this category are the additional PM Sacramento Commuter run ($3.53) and the
    Georgetown – Cool – Auburn service ($8.79). Other alternatives reduce both subsidy requirements
    and ridership, indicating that a high positive value (representing the dollars saved per passenger trip
    lost) is better. The elimination of South County service stands out by this measure, saving $80.41 in
    subsidy for every passenger-trip eliminated.

    The marginal farebox return ratio performance measure is calculated by dividing the marginal
    change in farebox revenues by the marginal change in operating costs. The negative value for the
    mid-day shift in IPC indicates the best value, as it reflects an increase in revenues over a decrease in
    costs. For alternatives increasing both revenues and costs, the service to the Red Hawk Casino stands
    out with a very high value of 1,309 percent. Other relatively good alternatives by this measure are the
    modifications to Placerville service to new areas (around 150 percent) and the additional Sacramento
    Commuter AM run (74 percent).

An overall assessment of financial impact also requires consideration of capital needs. The greatest
increase in fleet size would be required for the Express/Community Routes alternative, the reinstatement
of Rancho Cordova service, and the expansion of DAR, all of which would increase peak vehicles in
service by two. On the other hand, terminating the Sacramento Commuter service either at Sunrise or
Folsom would reduce peak vehicle needs by three. A number of alternatives would not require additional
vehicles (such as evening, Sunday or earlier service), as they would use existing vehicles during times
when they are not currently in use.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                 Western El Dorado County
Page 150                                                                          2008 Short Range Transit Plan
TABLE 46: El Dorado County Transit Authority Service Alternatives Performance Analysis
  FY 2008-2009 Ridership and Cost Analysis
                                                                                   Performance Measure
                                                                Marginal     Marginal      Marginal     Marginal        Marginal
                                                               Passengers   Passengers    Cost Per     Subsidy Per      Farebox
Alternative                                                     Per VSH      Per VSM      Pass. Trip    Pass Trip        Ratio

Status Quo
  Local Route Service                                             8.4          0.5         $9.69           $8.35         13.8%
  Rural Routes                                                    2.4          0.1         $37.25          $35.13        5.7%
  Dial-A-Ride Service                                             2.4          0.1         $35.92          $33.95        5.5%
  Sacramento Commuter Service                                     14.9         0.5         $6.37           $1.91         70.0%
  Iron Point Connector                                            1.9          0.1         $48.74          $46.58        4.4%
  Special Services                                                12.3         1.2         $6.14           $5.82         5.2%
  Sac Med                                                         1.7          0.1         $57.00          $52.75         7.5%
       Subtotal (Excludes Contracted Services)                    7.3          0.3         $14.45          $11.84        18.0%

Local Route Alternatives
  El Dorado Hills Fixed Route Circulator                          3.6          0.2         $23.29          $21.96        5.7%
  Express / Community Routes                                      5.5          0.2         $16.10          $14.23        11.6%
  Combined Pville Express/ Pollock Pines Route                     –            –           $0.00          -$1.34          --
  Add Earlier Pollock Pines Run                                   3.6          0.2         $22.44          $20.33        9.4%
  Extend Local Route Service 1 Hour in Evening                    4.9          0.3         $16.58          $15.25        8.1%
  Sunday Service on Local Routes                                  3.2          0.2         $25.00          $23.67        5.3%
  Modify Placerville Route to Serve Eskaton                        –           2.1         $0.43           -$0.23       154.0%
  Modify Placerville Route to Serve Mallard Lane Development       –           1.0         $0.89           -$0.44       150.0%

Iron Point Connector Alternatives
   Shift Schedule Mid-Day to Better Serve Commuters               -1.6         -0.1        -$56.63        -$58.75        -3.8%
   Add a 6:40 AM Run                                              1.6          0.1         $54.80         $52.60          4.0%
   Add a 4:40 PM Run                                              2.1          0.1         $42.15         $40.00          5.1%
   Serve Foothill Oaks Casino                                      –           5.7          $0.17          -$2.00       1309.1%

Sacramento Commuter Alternatives
  Terminate at Sunrise                                            10.2         0.4         $9.04           $4.58         49.3%
  Terminate in Folsom                                             9.9          0.3         $9.43           $4.97         47.3%
  Add AM Route Arriving Around 7:50 AM                            15.8         0.5         $6.00           $1.55         74.2%
  Add PM Route Departing Around 3:50 PM                           11.8         0.4         $8.00           $3.53         55.8%
  Eliminate Route 10 PM Run                                       8.7          0.3         $10.91          $6.45         40.8%

Provide Commuter Service from Folsom to EDH                       5.6          0.2         $15.63          $13.47        13.8%

Reinstate Commuter Service to Rancho Cordova                      2.3          0.0         $50.82          $48.53        4.5%

Rural Services
  Eliminate South County Service                                  1.1          0.0         $81.63          $80.41        1.5%
  Georgetown -- Cool -- Auburn Service                            6.9          0.3         $10.00          $8.79         12.1%

Provide Sac-Med Service One Additional Day per Week               1.5          0.0         $63.33          $59.17        6.6%

Expand Dial A Ride                                                2.4          0.1         $35.85          $33.88        5.5%

Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.




      Western El Dorado County                                                          LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
      2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                               Page 151
As is presented in Table 46 and in Figures 35 and 36, the advantages and disadvantages of each
alternative differ substantially. These performance indicators should be studied carefully before deciding
which, if any, of these service alternatives should be implemented in the short or long term. The relative
effectiveness of each service needs to be weighed against their ability to achieve the goals of the transit
service and against funding limitations.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                 Western El Dorado County
Page 152                                                                          2008 Short Range Transit 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 and benches, and computer equipment. Indeed, many capital elements will be required to
maintain and potentially expand EDCTA services over the coming years, as discussed below.

VEHICLE ALTERNATIVES
The size and types of EDCTA’s fleet are presented in Table 32. A total of 26 revenue vehicles are eligible
for replacement as of 2007 and an additional 14 will be eligible for replacement by the end of the
planning period. Based on EDCTA’s selection of the service alternatives presented in the previous
chapter, a Capital Plan will be presented in a subsequent step of this study that will identify an appropriate
vehicle acquisition schedule.

In FY 2006/07, the following prices are assumed for each type of bus currently used for the various
services provided by EDCTA. These estimates do not assume the vehicles will use alternative fuel.

    DAR/Local Routes - The cost of a Type III 20 passenger bus, similar to those used by EDCTA for
    contracted social services and local route services, purchased through the state contract is $60,000.
    The design life of this vehicle is 5-years/150,000 miles. The cost of a Type IV van similar to those
    used for DAR is $40,000. The design life of this vehicle is 4 years or 100,000 miles.

    Commuter Routes – The medium heavy-duty Bluebird Excel buses that EDCTA currently uses for
    their commuter fleet will no longer be available. The only comparable types of buses being
    manufactured are heavy duty urban transit-style vehicles and over-the-road coaches. Transit vehicles
    designed for use in cities and urban areas typically have some rear facing seats with no reclining
    seats. Not only does this type of arrangement not suit a passenger with a commute time of one hour or
    more but it reduces the seating capacity of the vehicle. The FTA designated service life of a heavy-
    duty bus is 12 years or 500,000 miles, though it is likely that an over-the-road coach will last for 20
    years. In comparison, a transit-style heavy duty bus may only last 15 years. Other transit systems with
    long distance commuter operations such as Placer County Transit, Fairfield/Suisun Transit, and San
    Joaquin RTD use over-the-road coaches. Yuba-Sutter Transit recently began a one month
    demonstration project using a Motor Coach Industries D 4500, 57 passenger vehicle. The cost of an
    over-the-road coach ranges from $500,000 to $550,000 whereas the cost of a heavy duty transit-style
    bus is $350,000 to $400,000. With the potentially longer life span, increased seating capacity and
    better rider amenities, the over-the-road coach is the best option for EDCTA.

Retired Van Donation Program

The EDCTA fleet currently includes 12 specialized transit vans which are used for DAR operations. FTA
service life policy dictates that light-duty vehicles and specialized vans are eligible for replacement after 4
years or 100,000 miles. Two of these vans (# 9901 and # 9902) are designated backup vehicles and have
logged over 180,000 miles each over 8 years of service. Four additional Chevy Vans (vehicles # 205, 206,
207, and 401) are currently eligible for replacement. Typically, retired vehicles are sold in the open
market.




Western El Dorado County                                                      LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                           Page 153
Recently, several transit agencies have implemented van grant programs to qualifying organizations in
order to enhance local transportation options. As examples, Intercity Transit in Washington has donated
retired vanpool vehicles to qualifying agencies, while Contra Costa Transit Authority has donated several
paratransit vans to community based organizations. Contra Costa Transit Authority’s “Community
Connections Van Grant Program” is particularly applicable to El Dorado Transit. The program is
multipurpose: dispose of old paratransit vans while providing community human service organizations
the resources to offer transportation to clients who would otherwise ride the local ADA paratransit
service. The following summarizes requirements associated with the Contra Costa Community
Connections program:

    The recipient must be a local non-profit organization or government entity whose primary purpose is
    to serve the elderly and disabled.

    The organization must be able to provide at least 50 trips each month to ADA-eligible clients. During
    a two year provisional period, ADA passenger ridership data is recorded and reported monthly to
    Contra Costa Transit Authority, after which the organization is released from reporting requirements
    and the van is considered to be owned by the organization.

    Preference is given to organizations which have the greatest need for the vehicle, reliable funding
    sources, and could provide a large amount of trips to ADA-eligible clients.

    The community based organization must repaint the van so that it is no longer recognizable as a
    public transit vehicle.

Additionally, Contra Costa Transit Authority reimburses the van recipient for $10,000 of vehicle
maintenance costs ($5,000 per year for two years) and provides free driver training.

Given the limited capacity of EDCTA’s DAR service, donating retired EDCTA vans to social service
agencies in the region could help to relieve demands on the system. Additionally, not all of El Dorado
County residents and services are easy for DAR to serve. For example substance abuse programs in
Georgetown are inaccessible by public transit, and the senior center in South County is served by transit
once a week and by the Senior Shuttle once a month. Donating a van to organizations in outlying parts of
the County may relieve the DAR system of longer, less cost-efficient trips.

Chapter 4 includes a review of human service agencies/organizations potential “program related” transit
demand. The transit demand analysis indicated that there is significantly more transit demand from social
service type of programs than passenger-trips being provided. El Dorado County Mental Health Services
generates the greatest transit demand. The County already owns one van which provides approximately
40 trips per month for patients to the clinics and facilities in Placerville and occasionally for transport
between Western El Dorado County and South Lake Tahoe. El Dorado County Senior Services also uses
one van to transport approximately 140 seniors per month for shopping trips and to the Senior Nutrition
Dining Centers.

In order to distribute a retired van equitably, EDCTA should implement an application and qualification
process. Contra Costa Transit Authority requires that a van grant program recipient must be able to
provide 50 ADA-eligible passengers trips per month. The recipient may provide trips for non ADA-
eligible passengers as well. Not all organizations surveyed in El Dorado County solely deal with ADA-
eligible persons. Some organizations are located in areas not currently served by DAR. Additionally,
organizations who work with youth in the community have expressed interest in a van donation program.
As EDCTA’s DAR system is not limited to ADA-eligible individuals, it seems appropriate to broaden
van donation eligibility to organizations who assist all types of transit dependent groups (disabled,

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                Western El Dorado County
Page 154                                                                         2008 Short Range Transit Plan
elderly, youth, and low-income). In FY 2006/07, DAR provided on average 2,700 trips per month. If a
high level of transit service were provided, most social service program categories listed in Table 40
generate transit demand significantly over 200 trips per month. This includes trips already provided on
DAR and through the social service agencies. With this in mind, a reasonable eligibility requirement for a
van grant donation program in El Dorado County would be 100 trips per month. In order to insure that the
donated vans are put to good use, some sort of reporting requirements should be implemented for a period
of at least one year. To minimize EDCTA’s costs, the van recipient should be responsible for all vehicle
maintenance but free driver training should be provided.

Organizations that are potential van grant recipients in Western El Dorado County include El Dorado
County Mental Health, PAVES, Vision Coalition, El Dorado County Senior Shuttle Program, Family
Connections, Headstart, and the Boys and Girls Club.

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.

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.

Western El Dorado County                                                      LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                           Page 155
There are 14 urban buses and 5 transit fleet vehicles in the EDCTA fleet. EDCTA is in the process of
completing the retrofit of all diesel engines to meet the 0.01 g/bhp-hr particulate matter emissions
standard. In order to develop a working concept of the different alternative fuels, their advantages and
disadvantages, and their potential application for the EDCTA 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% of the highway diesel fuel refined in or imported into the
United States (100% in California) to be ULSD as of 2006. One hundred percent must be ULSD
nationwide by 2010. Different requirements apply to non-highway diesel.

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.



LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                 Western El Dorado County
Page 156                                                                          2008 Short Range Transit Plan
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 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.

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.




Western El Dorado County                                                        LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                             Page 157
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 EDCTA who are
not located close to an 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 roadcall rate was 4½ 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.

One of the major drawbacks for CNG use in El Dorado County is the lack of a nearby fueling station. The
nearest CNG refueling stations to the EDCTA yard are the Placer County Public Works station in Auburn
and a public fueling station in Rancho Cordova about 25 miles away. The EDCTA Park-and-Ride Master
Plan lists a regional alternative fueling station near the Sacramento County/El Dorado County line south
of US 50 and north of White Rock Road as capital improvement priority Number 8. The County Line
Transit Facility project has been discussed preliminarily at a staff level between the City of Folsom,
County of El Dorado and transit operators. Total costs of this project which include a Park-and-Ride
facility are estimated at $5.4 million.

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
heavy-duty vehicles. The potential advantages of the fuel lie in its economic considerations, where the


LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                  Western El Dorado County
Page 158                                                                           2008 Short Range Transit Plan
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.

Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)

The advantages and disadvantages of LPG (commonly referred to as propane) are similar to those of
natural gas. The advantage of LPG is that gasoline engines can be easily converted, due to its high heating
and high octane characteristics. Propane vehicle power, acceleration, and cruising speed are similar to
those of gasoline-powered vehicles. The range of dedicated gas-injection propane vehicles is generally
less than gasoline vehicles because of the 25% lower energy content of propane and lower efficiency of
gas-injection propane fuel systems. LPG is not as commonly used for transit vehicles in the United States
as other alternative fuels.

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 matter 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 roadcalls. 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
Bernadino, 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 bio-diesel 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

Western El Dorado County                                                    LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                         Page 159
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% biodiesel and 80% petroleum diesel, B100 for 100% biodiesel, and so
forth. B20 is the most common biodiesel blend in the United States and provides the 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. The closest biodiesel fueling
station to EDCTA is in Meyers, CA near South Lake Tahoe.

Summary

The Transit Bus Life Cycle Cost and Year 2007 Emission Estimation report concluded that ULSD or
“clean diesel” buses are still the most economic technology, followed by buses fueled by B20 biodiesel.
Fuel economy rated best among the hybrid buses but overall costs were offset by battery replacement
costs. As for GHG emissions, the hybrid buses also outperformed the other alternative fuels followed by
B20 diesel, ULSD and then CNG. In the short-term, continuing to follow the ULSD diesel path seems the
most appropriate for EDCTA, especially considering EDCTA is in the process of completing the retrofit
of all transit fleet vehicle and urban bus diesel engines to meet the 0.01 g/bhp-hr particulate matter
emissions mandated by CARB. However EDCTA should remain open to the ideas of alternative fuels as
technology progresses and alternative fuel infrastructure is built.

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 power light to illuminate the passenger waiting
area.

According to Tolar Manufacturing, who has most recently supplied EDCTA with passenger amenities,
the approximate cost of a 13 foot metal shelter is $4,000. 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 of 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


LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                    Western El Dorado County
Page 160                                                                             2008 Short Range Transit Plan
fall in the range of $8,000 to $10,000. Maintenance and repair of vandalism to bus benches and shelter is
a very minor cost since they are designed to be very resistant to vandalism. As a result, cleaning and
maintenance costs are minor.

EDCTA will be provided with 15 new bus shelters with no capital or maintenance cost through an
advertising agreement with Lamar Transit Advertising. The following locations are proposed as the sites
of new bus shelters to be funded by Lamar:

    1004 Fowler Way, Placerville
    1266 Broadway, Placerville
    Future Cameron Park Community Center
    Mother Lode Drive and South Shingle Springs Drive (near Gold Harvey Market)
    Mother Lode Drive and South Shingle Springs Drive (near Family Chevrolet)
    Cold Springs Road Site 1 (Cold Springs Dental)
    Cold Springs Road Site 2 (DMV)
    Marshall Medical Building, Palmer Drive, Cameron Park
    Cimarron Road and La Canada, Cameron Park
    Pleasant Valley and Oro
    Northeast corner of Pony Express Transit and Sanders Drive
    Northeast corner of Carson and Larson Road
    Corner of Broadway and Pointview Drive, Placerville
    Tentative location at US 50/Coloma Road (EDCA Lifeskills)

All new passenger amenities should comply with the design standards referenced in the El Dorado
Transit Authority Transit Design Manual (LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2007).

Local Routes

EDCTA has made great strides over the past five years in implementing additional passenger facilities. A
total of 19 shelters and 15 additional benches are currently provided in the local route service area. In
order to comply with the Service Quality Goals proposed in Chapter 5, shelters should be constructed at
the following local route bus stops. These locations are not included as part of the shelter agreement with
Lamar.

    Old City Hall
    Child Development (FLC)
    Raley’s (Placerville Dr.)
    Safeway (Cameron Park Place)
    Placerville Senior Center (existing bench)
    Pleasant Valley/Church Street
    Union Mine High School

Additionally benches should be placed at the following local route bus stops:

    Placerville Post Office
    M.O.R.E.
    Gold Country Inn
    Lake Oaks/Patterson

The approximate total cost of attaining the passenger amenity standard for the local routes is $72,200.


Western El Dorado County                                                    LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                         Page 161
Park-and-Ride Lots

The US 50 Corridor Transit Plan (LSC Transportation Consultants, 2006) reviewed existing and future
parking demand at the El Dorado County Park-and-Ride lots created by future commute patterns and new
light rail services. By 2010 approximately 60 additional spaces will be required to meet demand at the El
Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride and 34 additional spaces would be required at the Cameron Park lot and 172
spaces. All other El Dorado County Park-and-Ride lots were found to be large enough to accommodate
future demand. By 2027, an estimated 172 spaces will be required in El Dorado Hills and 74 spaces in
Cameron Park. The El Dorado County Transit Authority Park-and-Ride Master Plan, completed by
Dokken Engineering in 2007, indicated the following top five priority capital improvements with possible
construction dates before 2012:

    Bass Lake Road Multi-Modal Facility – The 200 space Park-and-Ride facility is a condition of
    development in the Bass Lake Hills Specific Plan. The developer is required to acquire a site and
    construct 100 parking spaces. EDCTA will need to provide funding for the remaining 100 spaces,
    however mitigation fees received from other developers in the area could be used to fund this project.
    The lot will be located east of the El Dorado Hills lot and west of the Cambridge Park-and-Ride and
    will satisfy short-term parking demand associated with the Cameron Park and El Dorado Hills Park-
    and-Ride lots.

    Ponderosa Park-and-Ride Facility – Reconstruction of the driveway and loading area is required to
    allow transit buses to pickup passengers in the lot instead of roadside. Caltrans SHOPP Minor B
    funding has been designated for this project.

    Placerville Multi-Modal Station – The plan includes the expansion of the parking area to 130 spaces
    from 55 spaces.

    Central Transit Transfer Center – This center will act as a transfer facility for SAC-MED as well
    as include some Park-and-Ride capacity. It will be located adjacent to EDCTA’s operations and
    management center in Diamond Springs.

    Missouri Flat Road Park-and-Ride – This project would replace the interim Missouri Flat Road bus
    transfer facility with an improved transfer station and 25 passenger Park-and-Ride lot in a new
    location. Unfortunately, finding an available suitable location has become a challenge.

In order to comply with the Service Quality Goals proposed in Chapter 5, the following Park-and-Ride
lots shelters should be constructed at these Park-and-Ride lots:

    Ponderosa Park-and-Ride – A shelter and information kiosk is included in the Park-and-Ride
    capital improvement program and will be funded by Caltrans.

    Rodeo Road Park-and-Ride – This facility is owned by El Dorado County.

    El Dorado County Fairgrounds Park-and-Ride – This facility is owned by the County Fair
    Association.

Adequate lighting is important for safety and security at Park-and-Ride lots as EDCTA commuter routes
have many scheduled stops during non-daylight hours. Therefore, the approximate cost of two shelters
with benches, trash can and solar lighting is $13,200.



LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                Western El Dorado County
Page 162                                                                         2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities

At one end of their trip or the other, virtually all transit passengers also travel on foot or on bicycle as part
of their trip. A key element of a successful transit system, therefore, is a convenient system of sidewalks
and bikeways serving the transit stops. Additionally, by promoting non-motorized forms of transportation,
EDCTA can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants. EDCTA should continue to
work with the planning and public works departments of El Dorado County and the other jurisdictions in
the region to review construction plans and schedule priorities for pedestrian and bicycle improvements to
best coordinate with transit passenger needs. Generally, all local route and commuter buses should have
bike racks and this is the case with EDCTA. Only four EDCTA cutaway vehicles do not have bike racks
and these buses are primarily used for the contracted social services route rather than general public
services. In FY 2005/06, EDCTA received a BTA grant to replace 2-bike racks with 3-bike racks on all
buses. Unfortunately the 3-bike racks are not structurally compatible with El Dorado Transit’s Type VII
buses.

Bicycle racks for bike parking should be provided at bus stops where there is the potential for a high level
of patrons access by bike, such as near educational facilities. Elements to consider when improving
bicycle facilities at transit stops include:

    Location – Bicycle parking and storage should be conveniently located near the bus shelter/passenger
    loading area but away from the main flow of pedestrian traffic so there is no conflict. They should
    also be placed in an area where few street crossing are required. Constructing bicycle parking
    facilities at a bus stop where cyclists often lock their bikes to sign posts or utility poles can enhance
    the appeal of the transit stop.

    Security – Commuting cyclists require long-term bike storage and therefore require higher security at
    the parking facility. One option is bicycle “cages” which provide security for the bicycle while
    allowing security personnel to see the contents of the cage. Unless a bike cage is geared towards a
    specific office park or college campus, this type of bicycle parking tends to be vulnerable to theft.
    Bicycle lockers are another secure option. For shorter-term bike storage, providing a sturdy bike rack,
    ensuring that the area is clear of hazards and obstacles, and providing lighting if night time use is
    anticipated are good practice.

    Type of rack – Bicycle racks vary from the old fashion type which only holds the wheel of the
    bicycle to “wave” racks where the bike frame can be locked in one location and the inverted “U” rack
    where the bike frame can be locked to the rack in multiple locations. Racks can be made out of square
    or rounded metal piping and hold anywhere from 2 to 14 bicycles. The square metal piping is more
    resistant to theft.

Bicycle rack bike parking costs can range from $100 for a 2 bike setup to $500 for a 10 bike rack. Bike
locker costs range from $1,300 to $3,000 depending on the type of material used and locking mechanism.

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 the EDCTA
environment, there are three promising technologies within the APTS umbrella that have been developed
over recent years: Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) systems, Mobile Data Terminals (MDT), and
Electronic Fare Management Systems.


Western El Dorado County                                                        LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                             Page 163
APTS Currently in Use at EDCTA

Currently EDCTA employs Zonar Electronic Vehicle Inspection Report Technology for the primary
purpose of fleet maintenance management. “Tags” are placed at important inspection points on each
vehicle. During daily vehicle inspections, each driver places a hand-held reader near each tag and keys in
the condition of that part of the vehicle. After the inspection is complete, the reader is returned to a
vehicle mount inside the bus where the data is transmitted wirelessly to maintenance and operations staff.
This technology improves operational efficiency by allowing managers to be informed of potential
maintenance issues in a timely manner. The Zonar system also ensures that pre-trip vehicle inspections
are properly performed. Packaged with EDCTA’s Zonar technology is a GPS system which allows transit
supervisors to remotely pinpoint the route and stops of each bus and receive in-route information such as
vehicle speeds and excessive idling. Although vehicle on-time performance can be monitored using the
Zonar system, maintenance related issues are the primary focus of this technology.

EDCTA also employs Trapeze Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) software which incorporates transit
route, schedules, demand response trip orders, and vehicle assignments to allow dispatchers to more
efficiently schedule and dispatch trip requests.

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 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, etcetera) 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 system1. From 2001 to 2005 the Wisconsin Department of Transportation
surveyed several small to medium sized transit agencies before and after implementation of AVL
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 Federal Transit Administration, 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.

         1
             FHWA-RD-98-146, U.S. Department of Transportation.

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                 Western El Dorado County
Page 164                                                                          2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Pros and Cons for EDCTA: The complexity of the local transit services makes efficient connections
between services very important. The availability of AVL would be a great help to dispatchers in
directing efficient connections between various EDCTA services (particularly for connections between
the local routes at Missouri Flat). With the aging of the population, demand for demand response services
is likely to continue to grow. Implementation of AVL technology into the EDCTA’s existing CAD
program would be extremely useful in maximizing the efficiency of demand-response services,
particularly with regard to service to the more outlying portions of the EDCTA service area. It also is
likely that a state-of-the-art AVL system would increase on-time performance, by providing transit
supervisors more monitoring tools. The significant benefit of AVL for EDCTA would stem from
combining the system with other technologies such as MDTs or Automatic Passenger Counters (APC) so
that passenger boarding and alighting data by stop could be obtained. On the downside, implementing all
these technologies is expensive, requires careful research as to which systems are compatible, and may
not be worth the financial input. As with all the APTS discussed later in this section, there are the
additional costs of maintaining and operating AVL that potentially outweigh the benefits. Studies have
shown that the primary benefit of AVL is to improve on-time performance. Unless on-time performance
becomes a major issue at EDCTA, the financial impacts of AVL technology are likely to outweigh the
benefits.

Mobile Data Terminals

Mobile Data Terminals (MDTs) are a form of on-board communication technology between transit
drivers and operations staff. Using a text format transmitted via radio/cell phone, dispatch messages,
vehicle location, passenger counts, engine performance, mileage, and other information is directly
communicated to the transit agency office. MDTs can effectively replace paper manifests and allow for
easier and more thorough analysis of route performance. Additionally, MDTs limit frustration and time
when radio messages between dispatchers and drivers become inaudible and require repeating.

This form of technology can be particularly efficient when paired with other ITS systems such as
electronic fare payment, CAD and scheduling, automatic passenger counters, and AVL. An MDT/CAD
combination allows dispatchers to make optimal changes to itineraries when necessary and to
automatically communicate updated information to drivers. Communication systems can also be
integrated with AVL systems to provide real-time location data with every communication exchange.
This information can be transmitted in voice or text form.

MDTs can also be used to assist with the efficiency of systems planning and fleet management.
A MDT-AVL system combination can gather data and link the operations data to the transit agency's
Geographic Information System (GIS) to be analyzed for long-term planning and service adjustments.
This data could include real-time ridership figures generated by another technology, Automatic Passenger
Counters (APC) that can be used by for long-range service planning or in the short-term by operations
supervisors to add vehicles when demand outpaces the current in-transit capacity. Transit vehicles and
their communications systems can be installed with a dedicated channel for emergency response. MDTs
can include a pre-programmed emergency message that when integrated with AVL technologies can help
provide location and pertinent information about a distressed vehicle. In addition, a silent alarm or CCTV
camera video feed from a transit vehicle or transit facility to the operations or security center can be
employed.

According to TCRP Synthesis Report 70 (2007), which documents a survey of transit agencies who
employ MDT technologies, 39 percent of respondents use MDT to monitor on-time performance. The
exact cost of an MDT is difficult to determine without going through the procurement process, and the
price is very dependent on the number of units ordered the features available. According to the TCRP
survey, MDTs cost on the order of $1,000 to $4,000 per unit. Installation of the MDT units cost roughly

Western El Dorado County                                                   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                        Page 165
$500-$1,000 per unit. Transit agencies reported that annual maintenance is on average $200 per unit. In
addition to the initial capital costs, MDT manufacturers may charge monthly or annual fees for technical
support. Each driver will need to be trained on the MDT, which can take up to 8 hours per driver.

Pros and Cons for EDCTA: The primary purpose of the MDT technology is to facilitate communication
between drivers and dispatchers. When interfaced with CAD software, MDTs would increase
communications efficiency particularly for the EDCTA DAR vans which use cell phones to
communicate. Currently, EDCTA does not automatically collect on-time performance data, though the
Zonar system has the capability to generate reports that will assist in this department. With MDTs,
EDCTA would be able to more effectively and efficiently compile standard transit performance measures
such as passengers per vehicle service mile, passengers per vehicle service hour and on-time performance.
Particularly, determining the performance of the Cameron Park, Diamond Springs and Folsom Lake
College routes individually could be facilitated through the combination of MDTs and AVL. Case studies
with MDTs in rural transit systems have shown that some regions attempting to implement MDTs were
unable to do so due to an inadequate radio communications networks. EDCTA staff have indicated that
there are “dead zones” in some areas of the County and radio conflicts in portions of downtown
Sacramento. More in depth research would be required to confirm that a good data communications
network could be established encompassing all of the EDCTA service area.

Electronic Fare Management System

A transit systems fare management system encompasses the receptacle for depositing passenger fares and
fare media. Currently EDCTA uses standard manual fareboxes with a flip door. As for fare media,
EDCTA uses plastic monthly and lifetime passes and paper transfers, Sac RT transfers and scrip tickets.
Advanced fare systems are currently available that can make change, accept credit/debit cards, track
passenger boarding activity by route, run and stop, speed the passenger boarding process, and greatly
reduce the time and cost associated with collection of fares, tracking of fare data, and accounting.

There are three types of electronic fare media:

    Bar Coded Cards – Similar to technology employed in the retail industry, each bar coded ticket is
    labeled with specific data about the rider and fare. A bar code reader/scanner for each vehicle and
    costs on the order of $1,000 each. The base system which includes a computer and printer costs
    around $4,500. This is a relatively low cost method for transit systems to implement electronic fare
    media, automatically record trips, and generate operations and billing invoices.

    Magnetic Stripe Cards - These cards are paper or plastic tickets with a magnetic stripe for storing
    information. As an example, the BART system in the Bay Area uses paper magnetic farecards. There
    are two basic types: read-only swipe cards and read-write stored value cards. Read-only cards allow
    for automatic determination of the validity of an unlimited-ride pass. Read-write cards used in
    conjunction with a Ticket Processing Unit (TPU) can determine the validity of a multi-ride card or
    stored value card and deduct the necessary ride or value. Some units are able to print the remaining
    value on the card. Read-write cards can also be encoded with the information needed to serve as an
    “electronic transfer slip.” An “electronic purse” is another function of the magnetic stripe, where the
    stored value on the card can also be used to make small purchases from cooperating merchants.

    Smart Cards - A smart card is a type of fare medium that resembles a credit card with an embedded
    computer chip. Two types of smart cards exist: contact and contactless “proximity” cards. Contact
    cards must be physically swiped or fed through a card reader, whereas, contactless cards only need to
    be held within an inch or two of the card reader allowing for a speedier processing time. In fact,
    contactless cards do not even need to be removed from a wallet or purse to function properly. A

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                 Western El Dorado County
Page 166                                                                          2008 Short Range Transit Plan
    contactless smart card system potentially has lower maintenance costs because there are no moving
    parts needed to push the card through. In addition to the capabilities of the magnetic farecards, smart
    cards offer greater data processing capabilities and there is a move toward potential joint
    arrangements between the transit and banking industries using smart cards.

The farebox is the center of a fare management system. An electronic farebox generally includes the
following features:

    Magnetic swipe pass reader
    Passenger display
    Integration with passenger processing
    Interface with smart cards
    A ticket processing unit which can read and re-encode magnetic tickets or smart cards, or issue a
    magnetic transfer, daypass, or other agreed-upon document from an internal supply of blank
    unencoded stock
    Electronic cashbox door lock
    Silent alarm

More advanced electronic fareboxes include some or all of these additional features:

    Validate coins and bills and return those that are not acceptable to the system
    Accept, validate and, if necessary, re-encode magnetic thin card fare documents
    Optionally accept and process credit cards and Employer ID cards
    Print, encode, and issue a magnetic transfer, daypass, or other agreed-upon documents from an
    internal supply of blank unencoded stock
    Provide change (or an electronic “change card” for future use) for fare overpayment
    Optional interface to destination/next stop electronic signs/audio enunciator system, GPS, passenger
    counters, and CAD/AVL systems
    Driver control unit
    High security dual port cashbox with built-in electronic identification system

Pros and Cons for EDCTA: The primary advantage of an electronic farebox for EDCTA would be the
data management possibilities. An electronic farebox can record the number of boarding passengers by
type, total passes, stored value cards, etc. Route/Run summary reports can be initiated by the driver using
the driver keypad to create a record that summarizes all fare transactions since the last route/run request.
Stored ride/stored value cards could be an alternative to multiple ticket booklets. Passengers could
purchase either 10-ride, 20-ride, and 40-ride passes or a specified dollar amount worth of rides. These
passes would be magnetic-striped farecards or smart cards, originally encoded by a ticket printing and
encoding machine and typically sold off the bus. Electronic fareboxes can also issue and process transfers
automatically. Another benefit of electronic fareboxes is that they could streamline the ticket purchase
process for social service agencies. Some electronic fareboxes have the capability to accept “post billing
period passes” for different programs. Using a ticket printing encoding machine, a batch of pre-encoded
tickets valid for a specified period of time (say, one year) could be delivered to the various social service
agencies and distributed to the clients. When the ticket is inserted into the magnetic card reader, the
farebox reads the ticket and records the serial number, time of use, bus, and route. This data is then
uploaded to the data system so an invoice report for the Social Service agencies can be generated.

Drawbacks of the electronic farebox include: delays associated with difficulty feeding magnetic fare
cards through the machine, particularly if the card is wet, additional maintenance required and, of course,
the cost. Depending on the type of unit, an electronic farebox (without the capability to interface with
smart cards) may cost around $14,000 per unit. If magnetic fare media is used an additional $17,000

Western El Dorado County                                                     LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                          Page 167
would be required for each ticket printing/encoding machine purchased. (Costs associated with smart
cards are discussed below). Implementation of an electronic fare management system may also require
modification of the cash counting office to accommodate larger cashboxes and the installation and
maintenance of fareboxes.

Universal Fare Card for Sacramento Region

In 2007, the SACOG conducted a study to determine the feasibility of a universal fare card for the 14
transit agencies which serve the greater Sacramento region. The study recommends implementing the
following strategies:

    A regional contactless smart card that would be accepted by all transit agencies. The card would be
    reusable and passengers should be able to add value to the card at retail outlets and agency offices or
    link the smart card directly to a bank account.

    The following equipment would need to be installed in each transit agency vehicle: MDTs, smart
    card readers (this could be interfaced with an electronic validating farebox, a stand-alone unit
    mounted to the vehicle or a hand-held device) and wireless communications system that can
    upload/download data between the smart card reader and a yard-based computer.

    In order to issue the smart cards and process transactions, each transit agency would need to be
    equipped with a smart card printer/encoder, digital camera (for ID photos), and a credit/debit card
    processor.

    Retail outlets for transit passes and tickets would need to be outfit with a point of sale terminal for the
    regional smart card.

    A central manager or “regional center” would be required to assist with the reconciliation of revenues
    between the various transit agencies, purchase of materials, system maintenance and parts inventory,
    customer service and employee training and on-going support. Either one of the participating
    agencies or an independent third party could fill this role.

    A central website would be established and maintained by the central manager. The website would
    perform the following functions:

    -    Purchase of a new smart card
    -    Register a new or existing smart card
    -    One-time reload of a smart card, using a credit card for payment (reload to be performed
         automatically by smart card reader on bus or rail system within 48 hours)
    -    Set up automatic reload (“autoload”) of smart card by registering card and linking it to a credit
         card or bank account
    -    Review status, history and remaining value of an individual’s registered smart card; revise
         autoload parameters
    -    Report lost, stolen or destroyed smart card to hotlist it and request a replacement
    -    For administrators of employer-based transit benefit programs, manage and review smart card
         accounts of employer and participating employees



LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                   Western El Dorado County
Page 168                                                                            2008 Short Range Transit Plan
    -    Provide answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) and contact information for customer
         assistance and service

Implementation of a regional smart card would provide multiple benefits for passengers and transit
agencies:

    The primary benefit to the El Dorado County passenger is that a “seamless” transit trip could be
    provided from Placerville to Sacramento on EDCTA, light rail, and other transit services as only one
    type of fare media would be required for the whole trip.

    Employers or social service agencies that currently purchase transit passes for employees would be
    able to purchase a block of limited use pre-encoded smart cards and be billed electronically for actual
    trips periodically.

    In addition to only needing one card to access all transit systems in the Sacramento region, the
    regional smart card provides the passenger with multiple fare payment options. Value can be added to
    smart cards at retail outlets, an automated phone system or through the website. Additionally the
    passenger can set up a recurring autoload account that automatically adds value to the card based
    upon criteria set by the individual.

    Data tracking possibilities such as summary reports of fare types (passes, transfers, disabled riders,
    social service client, student etc.) would be helpful to operations management and reduce the need for
    driver data compilation.

The Feasibility Study estimates that the entire project will cost $8.2 million (including 20% contingency)
to implement. This number will fluctuate depending on the number of agencies involved and type of
equipment purchased. In addition to capital costs, the annual cost of collecting and processing fares
increases in the range of $1.5 - $2.0 million for the region overall, after adjusting for expected reductions
in lost revenue due to an electronic system and less fare abuse. Although each agency will see a decrease
in their in-house expenses and an improvement in revenues, these reductions do not offset the costs
associated with the new regional center.

Proposition 1B funding has been secured by SACOG to cover initial capital costs for all participating
agencies. Project implementation is planned to begin in FY 2009-2010. Transit staff recommended that
EDCTA participate in the initial procurement and implementation of equipment for 26 commuter routes
vehicles only with possible procurement of equipment for the remaining fixed-route vehicles in the future.
EDCTA staff estimate the capital costs of the project to be $282,000, or $10,850 per vehicle. Annual
operating costs incurred by the project will run about $36,000 per year.

Solar Energy Arrays

Many public entities have integrated alternative technologies such as solar power into their facilities and
operations. The City of Vacaville has installed solar arrays on the City Hall and at the Bella Vista Park-
and-Ride lot which produces electricity for city electric powered vehicles. In sunny California, large
buildings or structures such as a covered bus parking or maintenance facility would provide a good
location for solar panels. The EDCTA yard receives abundant sun and could be outfit with covered
parking and solar panels in order to reduce the agency’s carbon footprint.




Western El Dorado County                                                      LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                           Page 169
Advantages of APTS for El Dorado County Transit Authority

    EDCTA appears to be on track to implement smart card readers for the commuter services, and
    electronic fareboxes will not provide significantly greater data collection/processing options than
    smart card readers. As this is seen as the primary benefit of an electronic farebox for EDCTA, the
    cost of implementing electronic fareboxes does not outweigh the benefits. The remainder of the
    EDCTA system is not of sufficient size to make electronic fareboxes cost-effective.

    MDTs offer enhanced communication and transit performance tracking tools on top of smart card
    reader benefits that would be helpful for EDCTA at a smaller cost than electronic fareboxes. This
    technology would be particularly useful in managing the local routes to improve efficiency and on-
    time performance.

    Future procurement of AVL and GIS systems to assist EDCTA with long-term planning and
    operations management of DAR system could be beneficial in the long-term, particularly as AVL
    becomes more widely used in rural transit systems and costs are reduced.

As the system grows in response to growth in the community, or as the cost and dependability of these
technologies improves, EDCTA should carefully consider further investment in APTS systems as a
means of improving service quality while also increasing service effectiveness.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                Western El Dorado County
Page 170                                                                         2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                                                                  Chapter 8
                                Institutional and Management Alternatives
CONTRACTING FOR TRANSIT SERVICES
In an effort to reduce costs and maximize resources, many transit agencies enter into a contract to operate
all of some transit services with a private transportation company. This is seen as particularly useful when
beginning new transit services. Typically the transit agency will provide vehicles and general oversight
while the contractor provides drivers, dispatchers, vehicle storage, maintenance and day to day operations
management. Transit contractors located near and around El Dorado County include MV Transportation
and Paratransit Inc. in Sacramento, and First Transit (formerly Laidlaw Transit) in Roseville, California.

The primary advantage of contracting for transit services is cost reduction. Payments to the contractor are
usually based on a set dollar amount per unit such as revenue vehicle service hours. This method gives the
contractor the incentive to control costs. Contracting can be particularly beneficial for small transit
systems which have limited staff. Not only are drivers and operations management provided but the
contractor is responsible for worker’s compensation, employee benefits, and retirement programs. The
major disadvantage of contracting for transit services is that the transit manager has less control over daily
operations which in turn can have an effect on service quality. High employee turnover can result from
poor contractor personnel management and situations over which the transit manager has little or no
control.

Two of El Dorado Transit’s services could potentially benefit from contracting out to a third party,
namely, potential new service to El Dorado Hills and DAR:

    EDCTA’s facility in Diamond Springs is 20 miles one-way from El Dorado Hills. If the contractor
    were able to base operations out of El Dorado Hills, “deadheading” would be reduced significantly.
    Using a contractor to implement a new service would eliminate the need to hire new drivers and not
    significantly add to the duties of the operations manager. Operating costs incurred by the new service
    would be limited to the predetermined contract operating costs.

    EDCTA’s DAR system currently requires extensive system resources. Contracting for this service
    could free up dispatcher time to concentrate on other EDCTA services or assist with local route
    deviations that may alleviate some of DAR’s burden. DAR requires a subsidy of $1.3 million or 33.5
    percent of the subsidy required to operate all EDCTA services. In FY 2006/07 DAR operated 14,042
    vehicle service hours. This equates to a cost of $97.61 per vehicle service hour. Other transit contracts
    for demand response and fixed-route services in rural areas are approximately $60 - $70 per vehicle
    service hour. This provides a reasonable financial argument for contracting with a private operator for
    DAR services.

There are other factors that merit evaluation beyond simply cost, including the following:

    By using a contractor, EDCTA would be giving up a substantial amount of direct control over service
    quality factors. While some factors, such as response time, driver training, and in-vehicle travel time
    can be defined in a contract, DAR service is a personal one-on-one service that is hard to codify in
    contract language. Given the high level of service currently provided by EDCTA staff, the transition
    to a contractor can be expected to result in passenger complaints.




Western El Dorado County                                                      LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                           Page 171
    There may be labor law issues associated with the replacement of a current service operated with
    public employees with a contracted service regarding the DAR program. In particular, Section 13(C)
    of the Federal Transit Act grants certain protections and rights to employees that have their conditions
    of employment “worsened” as part of programs using federal transit funds (like EDCTA).

    Splitting these services from the remainder of EDCTA services could reduce the ability to shift or
    share resources. For instance, at present DAR vehicles can be used to serve fixed-route passengers
    that miss their connections. Timing connections between an El Dorado Hills local route and
    commuter services would also be an important element of an El Dorado Hills service. Both of these
    strategies would be more difficult if a separate contractor’s dispatcher would need to be included in
    the process.

    A substantial level of administrative resources would still be required on the part of EDCTA with
    contracted service. EDCTA staff would remain responsible for designing, marketing, and monitoring
    the service, and addressing passenger complaints. A rule of thumb in the transit industry is that 10
    percent of a service contract cost needs to be budgeted for administration.

    Making service changes could also be complicated by the need to make changes in the associated
    service contract. This may be a particular issue regarding an El Dorado Hills service.

If contracting is pursued, there are several good sources of strategies to ensure a successful contracting
arrangement. For instance, TRB Special Report 258, Contracting for Bus and Demand Responsive
Transit Services lists suggestions about contracting from various transit managers:

    Outline all of the duties and roles of all parties in the contract. Establish a clear mechanism for
    making changes in contract agreements, and define all expectations with respect to service quality.

    Include penalty clauses and rewards in contracts to motivate good performance.

    Routinely monitor contractor performance and provide the contractor with candid and frequent
    feedback.

    Maintain an open and collaborative relationship with the contractor.

Overall, contracting for a new El Dorado Hills service appears to be the most feasible opportunity for
EDCTA.

GREATER SACRAMENTO REGIONAL COMMUTER TRANSIT FUNDING
WORKSHOPS
El Dorado County Transit Authority, as the transit provider for Western El Dorado County, is only one of
numerous jurisdictions that expend significant funding for public transit services into downtown
Sacramento. In addition, commuter transit services are provided by the City of Elk Grove,
Fairfield/Suisun Transit System, Yolo County Transit Authority, Yuba Sutter Transit Authority, Placer
County, and the City of Roseville. These services provide substantial public benefits to both ends of the
commute trip. The “residential” jurisdictions gain benefits through improved access to employment,
reduced traffic and air emissions, and an improved quality of life for commuting residents. The central
Sacramento area also gains benefits through reduced traffic and associated environmental impacts both in
downtown as well as on access roadways, reduced parking demand, and improved access to a quality
workforce. To date, however, none of the outlying jurisdictions providing these benefits to the core area


LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                  Western El Dorado County
Page 172                                                                           2008 Short Range Transit Plan
receive any financial support for their transit services. Instead, all of the costs are borne by the outlying
jurisdictions. As costs for public transit increase faster than growth in revenues, these programs have the
potential to over time reduce the ability to fund other elements of the individual transit programs, such as
local transit services.

Unfortunately, Sac RT is in the process of implementing service reductions. In response to a $1.6 million
budget gap in the adopted FY 2008 budget, Sac RT is discontinuing or modifying 18 routes or a $1.3
million reduction in bus service. The Sac RT budget shortfall is a direct result of $1.3 billion dollar cut in
public transportation funding at the state level. Therefore it is unlikely that Sac RT would have the
financial ability to expand transit services into El Dorado County in the short-term.

Over the long-term, SACOG forecasts that employment opportunities in south/east Sacramento County
and El Dorado County will double by 2032. As this occurs, serving reverse commuters will become
increasingly important, and cost sharing between Sac RT, EDCTA, and other regional transit operators
may be more plausible. Under this alternative, EDCTA would work with other jurisdictions throughout
the region – possibly through the SACOG – to convene a series of workshops to define new and more
equitable forms of funding for regional commuter services.

TRANSFER POLICY
Local Route Transfers

EDCTA’s current fare policy allows for free transfers between different local routes. A review of peer
transit agencies shows that the majority of nearby small to medium sized transit systems do not charge for
transfers between local services. Some larger transit agencies serving San Mateo County, Santa Clara
County, Santa Cruz, and Bakersfield do not provide transfer slips and therefore a transferring passenger
must pay a second fare. Charging for transfers adds to the cost and confusion of boarding the bus and the
requirements placed on the transit drivers. The current policy of providing free transfers should be
continued.

As is common among transit agencies, EDCTA has an informal policy that transfer slips are only valid for
transferring between different routes, and cannot be used for ongoing travel on the same route. This is to
avoid the ability of a passenger to complete a round-trip while only paying a single fare. While this
practice generally serves EDCTA well, there is a possibility that a passenger would be unable to complete
a one way trip without having to pay two fares on the Diamond Springs route. The route is a large one-
way loop, but the individual buses are interlined with other routes at the Missouri Flat Transfer Center. As
a result, a passenger traveling from a point on the Diamond Springs route prior to Missouri Flat and
traveling to a point on the same route after Missouri Flat must transfer between vehicles on the same
route. In the past, some passengers have been charged twice for a one-way fare in this case. More
recently, transfer slips have been issued and marked as “continuous” by the drivers in order to allow the
passenger to continue his/her trip without double payment.

This routing configuration benefits the transit system, as it allows buses to be more efficiently used to
operate the routes. As it is not appropriate for a passenger to have to pay an additional fare due to this
routing strategy, one option would be to establish a formal transfer policy that transfers are not valid for
travel on the same route and add an exception to the fare policy to allow the use of a transfer issued on the
Diamond Springs Route to be used on this same route, so long as it is used within an hour of issuance.
While there is a small chance that an individual rider might use this exception to complete a quick (25
minute or less) trip to destination close to the Transfer Station, it is appropriate in this case to err on the
side of providing equitable fares to all passengers.


Western El Dorado County                                                      LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                           Page 173
Sac RT Transfer Agreement

As per the existing transfer agreement with Sac RT (discussed in Chapter 3), Los Rios Community
College Students and CSUS students can ride the EDCTA commuter routes at a discount and the local
routes fare free, and employees of both transit agencies are allowed to ride free on the partner transit
system with a valid employee badge. The underlying reason for this arrangement was to promote the use
of public transit. However, the benefits of this agreement have been very one sided. Nearly 1,140 free
trips were provided to Sac RT employees in FY 2006/07 (Table 9) whereas less than 5 trips were made on
Sac RT by EDCTA employees. This accounts for approximately $4,500 in potential fare revenue.
Although a similar number of trips were provided for students, students pay a portion of the commuter
fare so the revenue loss is less significant. EDCTA staff has been authorized to negotiate a new transfer
agreement with Sac RT that eliminates free trips for employees. Additionally, EDCTA is working with
the SACOG and several transit operators on the feasibility of a universal fare card for the region. A new
transfer agreement would be developed if EDCTA opts to participate in a universal fare card program.

SAFETY AND SECURITY
Since the 2001 terrorist attacks, safety, and security have become an increasingly important issue. Transit
organizations such as EDCTA can play an important part in this effort, both in terms of providing a
secure environment for bus passengers as well as being a partner in overall public safety efforts.

Transit Safety

Transit passenger safety can be enhanced through the following steps:

    Staff training in transit security workshops.

    Review of recent accidents and incidents.

    Transit passenger facilities should be developed or reviewed to ensure that clear sight lines are
    provided.

    Procedures should be established for reporting and tracking passenger and traffic incidents. The
    EDCTA staff should follow-up on any matters that need to be resolved.

A good accident prevention program is another important safety element for a transit system. A properly
designed accident prevention program will likely not cost money but rather save money. For the most
part, EDCTA recorded accidents since 2004 have been property damage only accidents, and EDCTA has
an established safety awards program. Nonetheless, a positive safety record does not ensure safety success
in the future without continued vigilance. In March of 2007, a consultant from the California Transit
Insurance Pool (CalTIP) developed a System Safety Program Plan (SSPP) for El Dorado Transit. Basic
components of the “Safety Management” portion are:

    EDCTA’s operations manager is the transit system’s safety advisor who oversees the implementation,
    maintenance, and update of the transit system safety program.

    EDCTA’s safety policy is, “No function of the El Dorado County Transit Authority is so critical as to
    justify or require a compromise of safety.” The policy should be distributed to all employees and
    posted in visible locations.



LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                 Western El Dorado County
Page 174                                                                          2008 Short Range Transit Plan
    Follow a proactive approach which identifies hazards early in the process so that appropriate
    recommendations for design and/or operation modifications necessary to ensure safety can be made.
    The EDCTA driver’s handbook includes a list of common accidents and defensive driving tips (pages
    23-25). This should be reviewed and updated over time.

    Examine previous accident data closely to identify potential hazards, improve vehicle procurement,
    improve employee selection, and improve operations and transit safety.

    Implement a system of measurement and evaluation. This includes a traffic accident frequency rate
    and categorizing different types of accidents.

    Communicating important safety information between management, employees, and transit users is
    important. Open door policies, suggestion programs, and public forums assist with this element.

EDCTA should continue to distribute and carry out the elements of the Safety Management Plan.

Public Security/Emergency Preparedness

Public safety and security can be enhanced by a public transit program when emergency evacuation and
transportation is required in response to a natural disaster or terrorist attack. El Dorado County updated its
Emergency Operations Plan in 2006. The plan outlines the organizational framework for the initial
response to a disaster situation and discusses roles and responsibilities of initial response agencies and the
Emergency Management Division of the County. Specific guidelines on how to involve El Dorado
Transit are not included in the plan. EDCTA has been called upon in the past by the Office of Emergency
Services to assist with evacuations, and staff has responded with sufficient resources quickly. At this
time, there is no official Memorandum of Understanding or policy which outlines procedures for
coordination between the County Office of Emergency Services and EDCTA. FTA developed a
recommended practice list for emergency response in the document Disaster Response and Recovery
Resource for Transit Agencies, (August, 2006). The following practices would benefit El Dorado County.
Although some of these recommended practices are also included in CalTIP’s SSPP “Security Program,”
the FTA document provides a more thorough list of emergency preparedness suggestions.

    Develop an Emergency Management Plan that includes a detailed key personnel contact list,
    checklists by functional area of actions to be undertaken, standard operating procedures, command
    structure, and communications protocol in the event of a disaster. The plan should also include bus
    parking and deployment strategies specific to a storm or other emergency event. As communication
    systems may be disrupted, the transit agency should create hard copies of the plan, protocols, and
    contact information.

    Ensuring that sufficient equipment and supplies such as fuel, batteries, and electrical generators is
    essential.

    Pre-establish evacuation routes and bus assignments in advance of a storm or emergency event.

    Memorandums of Agreement or Mutual Aid Agreements should be developed with other key
    agencies in the region that formalize and authorize assistance during an incident and help to facilitate
    financial reimbursement. In the case of EDCTA, transit staff should develop a formal agreement with
    the County Office of Emergency Services and ensure that the County has up to date contact
    information for EDCTA personnel.



Western El Dorado County                                                      LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                           Page 175
    Coordination with local school districts and human service transportation providers during an
    emergency event can add to the available pool of resources. Coordination with local social service
    agencies also assists with efficient evacuation of persons with special needs. EDCTA’s scheduling
    software and experience with ADA individuals makes EDCTA especially qualified to assist with the
    evacuation of persons with special needs. It would be advisable to develop a voluntary registry of
    such persons so that passengers can be notified and scheduling performed in advance.

    Transit policy suspension – In times of emergencies, EDCTA should consider establishing a no-fare
    policy and allow pets on EDCTA vehicles.

    Shelter management practices – This includes establishing a contact person at each shelter who
    focuses on the transportation needs of that shelter including meeting arriving buses, escorting
    transported passengers, and arranging for return trips. An EDCTA staff member may serve in this
    role.

    Education and training is critical to emergency preparedness. Employees should be trained on
    emergency procedures and management should clarify the expectations and duties of their employees
    during an emergency event. Transit agency employees should be encouraged to develop emergency
    preparedness plans with their own families so that they may be free to perform their emergency
    response duties. Passengers should be provided specific directions on how to access transportation
    services during an emergency.

    Mock training drills should be performed periodically.

    Compensation polices – EDCTA should consider compensating transit employees who respond to an
    emergency event.

EDCTC can also play a role in security/disaster planning by directing funding towards projects which
may help prevent, mitigate or monitor a security incident. Examples of such projects include:

    Coordinate drills and exercises among transportation providers to practice emergency plans

    Hazardous route planning

    Secure management of data and information on transportation system vulnerabilities

    Funding communications systems and other technology to speed response to incident

    Coordinating public information dissemination strategies

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.


LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                Western El Dorado County
Page 176                                                                         2008 Short Range Transit Plan
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 EDCTA’s 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 onboard 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

    -    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




Western El Dorado County                                                          LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                               Page 177
    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.

Past and Ongoing El Dorado County Transit Authority Marketing Efforts

In 2006, Selena Barlow Transit Marketing, LLC conducted a Market Assessment and Marketing Plan for
El Dorado Transit. Out of a long list of recommended marketing strategies, EDCTA has implemented the
majority of marketing plan elements. Many of the recommendations in the marketing plan were service
alternatives which have either been addressed in this document or are not feasible at this time. The
following lists the remaining incomplete marketing plan elements which are feasible to complete:

    Relocate bus shelter at Marshall Hospital

    Improve bus stop signage systemwide (75 percent complete)

    Make telephone information easier to access

    Use El Dorado Transit brand more consistently and prominently on all vehicles, signs, facilities, and
    materials (50 percent complete)

    Testimonial advertising campaign

    Outreach to “gatekeepers,” such as social service program managers (50 percent complete)

    Form marketing partnerships with Raley's and other prominent County retailers

    Working in partnerships with social service providers and other gatekeepers to increase
    communications with the Latino community

    Encourage trial riderships in partnership with senior complexes (65 percent complete)

    Improve communications value of commuter vehicles and Park-and-Ride lots

A marketing budget of $50,000 was recommended for FY 2007/08, $60,000 for FY 2008/09 and 2
percent of the Budget for FY 2009/10.

Marketing for New Services

As noted in the Market Assessment and Marketing Plan, one 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.
Marketing campaigns for the IPC Service included: “Free Fridays” for six months,

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                    Western El Dorado County
Page 178                                                                             2008 Short Range Transit Plan
extensive outreach efforts at transit oriented fairs and events, inclusion of the IPC in the
Cure4theCommute campaign and targeted marketing at Folsom Lake College and the FTB Campus in
Rancho Cordova. Despite these extensive marketing efforts, the IPC has seen low ridership during its first
year of operation. As the IPC has direct transfers to Sac RT light rail, commuters and students have been
the primary target market for this service. The IPC also serves the Kaiser campus in Folsom and could be
an important transit link for transit dependent El Dorado County residents requiring transportation to
Sacramento during the middle of the day. While continuing to attend outreach events in Sacramento and
at Folsom Lake College, EDCTA should expand marketing efforts for the IPC to the transit dependent
population in Placerville.

The IPC should also be more intensively marketed to existing EDCTA Commuter Service riders.
Commuter riders have frequently noted that the lack of mid-day Commuter Service runs discourages
ridership, as passengers feel that their flexibility to travel or their ability to return to El Dorado County
unexpectedly is limited. The fact that the IPC provides (along with Light Rail) service every two hours
over the working day from Sacramento back to El Dorado County should be marketed to commuter
riders, including a notation on the commuter bus schedules.

Joint Marketing with Connecting Transit Services

As discussed above, a key marketing advantage of EDCTA is the many connections possible with other
transit services. EDCTA could capitalize on this advantage by taking the lead in developing a US 50
Corridor transit rider guide, detailing the system as well as the Folsom Stage and Sac RT connections.
This map would be displayed on vehicles, websites, and facilities of all of the above transit services.

Schedule Information at Bus Stops

One marketing strategy which was highlighted as part of the public comment 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 plexiglass protector
inside the shelter or below the bus stop sign post. This would cost approximately $100 per stop.

EDCTA existing policy is to post schedules in shelters and at “high traffic” stops that are served by at
least two or more local or commuter routes. At present, 29 stops display schedule information. One
common rule of thumb is to post schedules at all time points. As EDCTA schedules list time points for
every non-request bus stop, posting schedules at every bus stop could become expensive and time
consuming when route adjustments are made. On average it may take at least one full day of staff time to
update schedules at all bus stops. A more appropriate method of determining where to display schedule
information would be review boarding activity by stop for the local routes and post schedules at stops
with five or more average weekday boardings. Table 23 shows that at least five daily boardings were
recorded at the following stops with no posted schedules. Stops marked with an “S” are already included
in the capital plan as needing a shelter as per the goals set forth in Chapter 5. The remaining stops listed
warrant a bench as well.




Western El Dorado County                                                        LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                             Page 179
            Child Development (FLC) (S)                      MORE
            Raley’s (Placerville Dr.) (S)                    Cold Springs Dental
            Safeway (Cameron Park Place) (S)                 Eskaton Lincoln Manor
            Pleasant Valley/Church Street (S)                Carson/Larsen
            Union Mine High School (S)                       Lake Oaks/Patterson
            Big Lots (Fair Lane)

As stops with five or more average weekday boardings account for 85 percent of total boarding activity
on the local routes, it is not cost efficient to post schedules at more stops than those listed above. A total
of 12 schedule holders would be required, costing around $1,200. It should be noted that schedules are
provided at 20 additional local stops and 4 Park-and-Ride lots.

EDCTA Route Signage

There are 20 designated EDCTA commuter stops in downtown Sacramento and 6 Park-and-Ride stops.
The 2006 Marketing Study recommended improving signage at the Park-and-Ride lots as well as adding
way-finding signage near the Park-and-Ride lots as they were deemed “invisible” to a potential new user.
The plan recommended that enhanced information displays at the Park-and-Ride lots include commuter
schedule information. A new sign may cost on the order of $500 totaling $3,000 for one directional sign
at each Park-and-Ride and $200 for schedule holders.

A review of the EDCTA bus sign inventory shows that all Commuter Route stops are signed and that 14
out of 106 local route stops are not signed. Eight of these unsigned stops are located in rural areas along
the Grizzly Flat or South County Route. In many cases, these unsigned stops would be difficult to sign
due to space issues or underground utilities. EDCTA staff have also noted that many of the Grizzly Flat
stops are informal pick up and drop off locations that are understood between driver and passenger.
Nevertheless, signing stops where feasible is a good standard practice to market the transit service to non-
riders and to minimize issues between drivers and passengers.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                    Western El Dorado County
Page 180                                                                             2008 Short Range Transit 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 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program

A mainstay of transit funding for smaller cities across the country is the FTA’s Section 5307 Urbanized
Area Formula Program. These funds are provided to urbanized areas (as identified by the Census Bureau)
with a population of 50,000 or more, and are for use throughout the urbanized area. As El Dorado Hills is


Western El Dorado County                                                      LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                           Page 181
included in the Sacramento Urbanized Area, EDCTA is eligible for FTA Section 5307 funds for services
in El Dorado Hills. For FTA FY 2007/08 (October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008), a total of $19
million is available to the Sacramento Urbanized Area. The El Dorado County Regional Transportation
Plan estimates that EDCTA will receive about $400,000 annually from this program.

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
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). If urbanized, a duly authorized recipient of FTA funds has to first program all of
its Section 5307 funds before Section 5309 funds can be expended. In FTA FY 2007/08, $46 million was
available statewide for bus and bus facilities projects. EDCTA has been allocated $1 million through this
funding program for commuter buses in the past.

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 2007-2008
apportionments totaled $12.4 million statewide. In the past, EDCTA has been awarded 5310 funds for
fixed-route and DAR vans.

FTA Section 5311 Nonurbanized Area Formula Program

Federal transit funding for rural areas, such as El Dorado 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 EDCTA operations in FY 2007/08 is approximately $200,000. Statewide,
Section 5311 funds totaled nearly $20 million in FTA FY 2007/08.

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.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                  Western El Dorado County
Page 182                                                                           2008 Short Range Transit Plan
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 are for ozone and CO. Currently there are no funds available to
distribute for this program.

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. Under SAFETEA-LU the JARC program is a formula program and allocation is based
on the number of low income persons. States and designated recipients must select grantees
competitively. SACOG is a designated recipient and was eligible for $775,462 in FY 2007/08 for
subrecipients in the Sacramento Urbanized Area. Non-urbanized areas can apply for grants through the
state. Estimated funding available for rural projects in FY 2007/08 in California is $2.7 million. As for
EDCTA services, JARC funding would be available for the IPC service. 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.

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. To be eligible for
funding, New Freedom projects in urbanized areas must be included in the Metropolitan Transportation
Plan prepared and approved by the metropolitan planning organization (MPO), the Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) approved jointly by the MPO and the Governor, and the Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) developed by a State and jointly approved by FTA and the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 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.

Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) SAFETEA-LU Funding

A strong source of funding for many transit services across the country has been provided by the
Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) program, authorized through SAFETEA-LU. This funding is


Western El Dorado County                                                   LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                        Page 183
available to regions that are not in compliance with federal air quality standards regarding ozone or
carbon monoxide. As El Dorado County is not in attainment for these standards, CMAQ funding is
available for local services.

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).
These funds are generated by a 1/4 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 EDCTA program in FY 2006/07 totaled $3.7 million, and typically no
TDA funds are allocated to streets and roads. The El Dorado County RTP assumes that sales tax revenues
will grow at three percent per year. However, actual County sales tax revenues for the beginning of FY
2007/08 are 2.72 percent less than the previous FY. In FY 2007/08, LTF funding is anticipated to
decrease by 4 percent to $3.5 million Therefore, given the current economic climate, the LTF estimates in
the RTP represent an optimistic short-term financial outlook for EDCTA.

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 2007/08 STA funding allocated to the EDCTA was approximately $669,429.

Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) Program

This program provides funding for projects that improve the safety and convenience for bicycle
commuters. Local jurisdictions must have an adopted “Bicycle Transportation Plan” approved by Caltrans
to be eligible for funding. Projects must conform to the requirements of Caltrans’ Highway Design
Manual, Chapter 1000. Commuter bikeways are eligible. In FY 2005/06 EDCTA received $20,782 in
BTA funds to replace the bike racks on all buses to hold 3 bikes instead of 2. In FY 2007/08 EDCTC will
receive $615,000 for the construction of Class I and Class II bike paths in the County.

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

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                   Western El Dorado County
Page 184                                                                            2008 Short Range Transit Plan
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). EDCTA will receive about $1.2 million in PTMISEA funds in FY 2007/08.

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.
AB 2766 funds have been used to operate the fare free Apple Hill Shuttle and Fair Shuttle in El Dorado
County.

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.

Property Tax

The property tax is an additional feasible source of subsidy for transit services. This tax can be relatively
efficiently collected. In addition, property tax tends to be progressive – those most able to pay are those
that tend to be impacted. The availability of this funding source in the foreseeable future, however, is very
doubtful in light of the traditional reluctance of voters to increase this tax. The ability for a property tax to
pass in a general election will only occur when a majority of area residents feel transit service provides a
benefit to them individually.

Traffic Mitigation Fees

Traffic mitigation fees are one-time charges on new developments to pay for required public facilities,
and to mitigate impacts created by or reasonably related to development. There are a number of
approaches to charging developers, however, in all cases, these fees must be clearly related to the costs
incurred as a result of the development with a rational connection between fee and development type.
Furthermore, fees cannot be used to correct existing problems or pay for improvements needed for
existing development. A county may only levy such fees in the unincorporated area over which it has
jurisdiction, while a city must levy fees within the city limits. Any fee program must have the cooperation
of all jurisdictions affected. El Dorado Transit is included in the TIM fee program for the region.



Western El Dorado County                                                        LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                             Page 185
Approximately $500,000 is available for Park-and-Ride, right of way and/or construction in the later
years of the program. Due to the slow down in housing construction it is likely that this funding will not
be available during the five year scope of this SRTP.

Contract Revenues

Transit systems also often generate income through revenues associated with contracted services. EDCTA
currently contracts with M.O.R.E. and other agencies to provide specialized transportation services.
EDCTA should continue to evaluate requests for service as agencies in the region wish to expand access
to their programs.

Advertising

One modest but important source of funding for many transit services is on-vehicle advertising. The
largest portion of this potential is for exterior advertising, rather than interior “bus card” advertising. The
potential funds generated by advertising placed with the vehicles is comparatively low. However,
EDCTA recently entered into a new five year advertising agreement with Lamar Transit Advertising. Per
the agreement Lamar will invest up to $225,000 in 15 new bus shelters in exchange for shelter and bus
advertising. Additionally Lamar will give EDCTA a percentage of advertising revenue or a five year
guaranteed payment as well as provide maintenance and repair of existing shelters.

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.

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


LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                    Western El Dorado County
Page 186                                                                             2008 Short Range Transit Plan
discourage transit use, particularly for low income passengers who may be the most dependent on transit.
The financial alternatives section reviews the current fare structure for El Dorado Transit through a
comparison with similar California transit services, and evaluates alternative fare structures.

Since the last SRTP update in 2003, EDCTA has only raised fares on the commuter routes. The new fare
policy was enacted in two increments (July 2004 and July 2005) and raised the base one-way fare from
$3.00 to $4.00.

Potential Increase in DAR Fare

One alternative which has the potential to alleviate capacity issues while decreasing operating costs on the
DAR system is to raise fares. DAR fares are usually set higher than fixed-route fares to reflect the fact
that the service is more expensive to operate and is more specialized to the passenger’s needs. EDCTA
general public DAR base fare is $3.00 per trip (for a single zone trip) and the base fare for an
elderly/disabled passenger is $1.50 per trip. Table 47 presents a review of DAR fare structure for ten
similar transit agencies in Northern and Central California. As shown, the average DAR fare of peer
systems for the general public is $2.43, depending on the service area, and ranged from $1.25 to $4.00.
The average elderly/disabled fare of the reviewed agencies was $1.98 and $1.91 depending on the service.
Most agencies charged a single-ride fare of $2.00 for seniors or disabled passengers; however, they range
from $0.60 to $3.75 with rural local services charging the lowest fares. EDCTA’s general public DAR
fare is roughly 25 percent higher than its peers but the fare for elderly and/or disabled passenger is
roughly 25 percent lower than that of the peer transit agencies reviewed. It should also be noted that
EDCTA does not provide a reduced fare for youth general public (as does 3 of the 5 peer systems serving
general public riders on DAR).

Given the relatively low farebox return ration for the DAR program, that fares for elderly/disabled
passengers are relatively low compared to peers, and that these fares have not been increased in many
years, it is appropriate to consider a fare increase for the DAR program. Another consideration is that a
fare increase could better ensure that those passengers most in need of the service are provided with
service. At present, DAR capacity is largely “rationed” by passenger’s ability to make a reservation in the
short period after 8:00 AM three days prior to the desired day of service before all capacity is scheduled.
Raising fares could shift passengers who have other potential travel options off of the DAR service,
freeing capacity for those most in need of transportation.

TCRP Report 119, Improving ADA Complementary Paratransit Demand Estimation, developed a series
of paratransit demand factors using data from 28 representative systems. The factor for base partransit
fare was determined to be appropriate for estimating the impact on ridership from a fare increase on the
EDCTA DAR system. This analysis is considered consistent with an elasticity analysis. Due to capacity
constraints, DAR is essentially limited to senior and disabled passengers, therefore the elderly/disabled
fare of $1.50 was used as a base for this analysis.

If the elderly/disabled fare were increased to $2.00 (in line with peer agencies), a 33 percent increase,
ridership is estimated to decrease from 33,230 to 31,600 annual passenger-trips or 5 percent. Note that the
overall impact on ridership is expected to be relatively slight, as persons currently unable to make a
reservation due to capacity constraints would tend to “backfill” the loss of ridership associated with the
fare increase. The increased fare level would increase farebox revenue by $18,000 (assuming a
corresponding 33 percent increase in fares for all DAR zones). Factoring by 2.4 passenger-trips are
carried per vehicle service hour, (Table 30), 690 fewer vehicle service hours will be required. Using the
updated cost model, a decrease of $71,000 in DAR operating costs is estimated. Adding the increase in
fare revenues, this option would reduce overall annual subsidy requirements by approximately $89,000.


Western El Dorado County                                                    LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                         Page 187
   TABLE 47: Peer Review of Dial-A-Ride Route Fares
                                                                                    Single-Ride
   Provider                                               Regular             Youth             Elderly           Disabled

   EDCTA (For Single Zone Trip)                            $3.00              $3.00              $1.50             $1.50
   Gold Country Stage                                        -                  -               $2.00             $2.00
                               1
   Placer County Transit                                  $2.00              $1.00              $1.00             $1.00
   Folsom Stage                                              -                  -               $3.75             $3.75
   Merced County Transit 2                                $2.00              $2.00              $2.00             $1.00
   Modesto Area Express                                   $2.00              $2.00              $2.00             $2.00
   Redding Area Bus Authority                                -                  -               $3.00             $3.00
   San Benito Transit 4                                $2.00 / $1.75      $2.00 / $1.75      $1.00 / $0.75     $1.00 / $0.75
   San Joaquin Regional Transit District              $2.00 / $1.25 5         $1.00 6       $2.00 / $0.60 7 $2.00 / $0.60 7
   Visalia City Coach                                     $3.00               $3.00             $2.00           $2.00
   Yuba Sutter Transit                                    $4.00               $2.00             $2.00           $2.00

   Peer Average(8)                                         $2.43              $1.86              $2.08             $1.98
                                            (8)
   EDCTA Percent of Peer Average                           124%               162%                72%                   76%
                        (8)
   EDCTA Ranking                                            2/8                1/5               9 / 11             8 / 11

   Note 1:   Rocklin/ Loomis / Hwy 49 region
   Note 2:   General Public only allowed in Atwater and Winton service area
   Note 3:   Merced and Los Banos fares are $2.00 (no General Public allowed) and Atwater and Winton fares are $1.00
   Note 4:   Fares are displayed as within City limits and outside City limits
   Note 5:   Rural fare is $2.00, Escalon fare is $1.25.
   Note 6:   Escalon service area
   Note 7:   SMA-ADA and Rural fares are $2.00, Escalon fare is $0.60.
   Note 8:   Assuming fare for largest area in San Benito and San Joaquin to best match the large EDCTA service area.

   Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. – compiled from transit providers July 2007, February 2008.




Potential Increase in Senior Day Care Subscription DAR Fare

Since 1980 and to the present day, the Senior Day Care program participants are charged a fare of only
$2.00 per day (for either one-way or two-way service), which results in an average fare of $1.09 per one-
way passenger-trip – substantially below the $1.50 fare for other Seniors. This service is capped at 30
round-trips per day. Given that the cost of providing a DAR passenger-trip is on the order of $41, the
Senior Day Care program passenger revenues are currently covering only 2.6 percent of the cost of
providing service. To make service more equitable, the daily fare could be tied to the base Senior DAR
fare, resulting in a raise to $3.00 per day. This option is not expected to result in any loss of ridership, and
would increase fare revenue by roughly $1,000 per year.

Potential Increase in DAR Fares in El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park/Shingle Springs Zones

The DAR service operates on a series of 12 zones, with fares based on the cost associated with providing
service to each zone and the length of a passenger’s trip (as measured in the number of zone boundaries
crossed). While most fares were defined to result in passenger’s paying roughly equivalent proportions of
overall service costs, an exception was made for the El Dorado Hills zone (Zone A) and the Cameron

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                                 Western El Dorado County
Page 188                                                                                          2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Park/Shingle Springs zone (Zone B). These fares were set equivalent to the base fares for Zone C (the
Placerville area) even though the cost of providing service to these zones far from the existing EDCTA
operating base in Diamond Springs results in substantially higher costs to serve passengers in Zones A
and B. This strategy assumed that demand for DAR service in Zones A and B would grow to the point
where is would be efficient to operate DAR vans on an ongoing basis in the western portion of the
County, thereby reducing operating costs per passenger-trip. In reality, this demand has not materialized:
as shown in Table 24, roughly 17 percent of DAR ridership is generated by Zone B and 3 percent by Zone
A. All but a few of these riders are traveling from Zones A or B to Zone C, with very low level of
ridership traveling within Zones A or B (which would justify basing a vehicle in these zones). The current
fare system, therefore, is inequitable in that a passenger in other outlying areas (such as Pollock Pines or
Camino) pays a higher fare and proportion of total costs than does a passenger in Zones A or B, even
though the cost of service is comparable. For example, the Senior/Disabled fare for a trip within Pollock
Pines is $5.00 while the fare for a trip within El Dorado Hills is $1.50, and the fare from a trip between
Pollock Pines and Placerville is $6.00 while the fare between El Dorado Hills and Placerville is $2.50.

Under this alternative, fares in Zone A would be set equivalent to fares in Zone L (Pollock Pines), while
fares in Zone B would be set equivalent to fares in Zone D (Camino). This would result in the following
changes in Senior/Disabled fares for common trips:

    El Dorado Hills – El Dorado Hills: From $1.50 to $5.00
    El Dorado Hills – Placerville: From $2.50 to $6.00
    Cameron Park – Cameron Park: From $1.50 to $3.00
    Cameron Park – Placerville: From $2.00 to $3.50

Applying these fare increases to the estimated annual ridership generated by the affected zones, an
elasticity analysis indicates that overall DAR ridership from the outlying zones would be reduced by
approximately 600 one-way passenger-trips per year. However, it is expected that this capacity would be
filled by trips in other portions of the service area that are not currently accommodated. Roughly $3,400
in additional fare revenue would be generated.

Potential Increase in Commuter Fares

It is also appropriate as part of this study to evaluate the existing commuter fares. As a basis for this
evaluation, existing fares on nine Sacramento region commuter services were evaluated as peers to El
Dorado Transit. As shown in Table 48, this review indicates the following:

    Single-Ride Fare – The single fares range from $1.50 on e-Tran to $5.50 on Placer County Transit
    (from Colfax to Sacramento). The average single fare among the peers (considering the mid-point of
    the Placer County Transit route and the resident rate for Roseville Transit) is $3.04, which is
    substantially less than El Dorado Transit’s $4.00 base fare. Three systems charge a higher fare and
    three a lower fare.

    Monthly Pass Cost – The monthly pass is the primary choice of passengers on most commuter
    transit services. The monthly passes range in price from $60.00 on e-Tran to $170.00 on Placer
    County Transit’s Colfax commuter. Compared to other peer systems in the Sacramento Region, El
    Dorado Transit’s commuter monthly pass ($144.00) is substantially more expensive than the average
    ($100.40), with the second highest fare in the region.




Western El Dorado County                                                     LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                          Page 189
Page 190
                                       TABLE 48 : Peer Fare Review on Commuter Downtown Sacramento Services
                                                                                                                  Sac RT
                                                                                    Single       Monthly         "Combo"           Fare per Mile      Travel        Fare per Hour      Systemwide
                                       Provider                                      Fare         Pass             Pass         Single    Monthly     Time        Single     Monthly    Farebox %




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                       El Dorado County Transit                      $4.00        $144.00       $    170.50     $0.09     $0.07     1hr 40 min    $2.41      $1.97       22.1%
                                       Elk Grove: e-Tran                             $1.50        $60.00              --        $0.08     $0.07       50 min      $1.81      $1.64       20.0%
                                       Placer County Transit, from…                                                                                                                      11.0%
                                          Colfax, Clipper Gap                        $5.50        $170.00             --        $0.10     $0.07     1 hr 30 min   $3.67      $2.58
                                          Auburn, Penryn, Loomis                     $4.50        $140.00             --        $0.12     $0.09        1 hr       $4.50      $3.18
                                          Rocklin, Roseville                         $4.00        $125.00             --        $0.17     $0.12       45 min      $5.33      $3.79
                                       Yolobus                                       $2.00        $80.00        $      85.00    $0.10     $0.09       40 min      $3.03      $2.75       26.0%
                                       Yuba-Sutter Transit                           $3.50        $112.00             --        $0.08     $0.06         1 hr      $3.50      $2.55       22.0%
                                                                                                 $85 plus
                                       Amador Regional Transit(1)                    $3.50       $0.25 per            --        $0.08     $0.05     1 hr 30 min   $2.33      $1.45       19.0%
                                                                                                    trip
                                       Roseville Transit                                                                                                                                 17.9%
                                         Resident / Reverse                          $3.25        $110.00      not available    $0.19     $0.15       40 min      $4.92      $3.79
                                         Non-Resident                                $4.50        $155.00      not available    $0.26     $0.21       40 min      $6.82      $5.34

                                       Peer Average(2)                               $3.04        $100.40             --        $0.11     $0.08         --        $3.35      $2.56         --
                                       EDCTA Percent of Peer Average(2)              132%          143%               --         83%       88%          --         72%        77%          --
                                       EDCTA Ranking(2)                               4/7           2/7               --         4/7       4/7          --         4/7        5/7          --

                                       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




   Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
    Fare per Mile – As the various commuter services vary in length, it is appropriate to also consider
    the fare charged per route mile. In the single fare category, fare per mile ranges from $0.08 (Amador
    Regional Transit, Yuba Sutter Transit, and e-Tran) to $0.26 (Roseville non-resident). The average
    single ride fare per mile is $0.11 which is greater than El Dorado Transit’s single ride fare per mile
    ($0.09). Monthly pass fares per mile range from $0.06 on Yuba Sutter Transit to $0.15 for a Roseville
    Transit (resident). El Dorado Transit’s monthly pass fare per mile ($0.07) is less than the peer average
    of $0.08. If the average single fare per mile and monthly pass fare per mile is multiplied by the one-
    way mileage between Placerville and Downtown Sacramento (45 miles) a single ride commuter fare
    of $483 and monthly pass price of $164 would result. EDCTA’s fare per mile ranks in the middle of
    the peers, with three systems with a higher value and three with a lower value.

    Fare per Hour of Travel Time – As most of the cost of providing transit service is associated with
    the time required for a trip (rather than the mileage), a better comparison is the fare per passenger-
    hour of travel time. A typical trip between Placerville and downtown Sacramento takes about 1 hour
    and 40 minutes. Peer transit agency fare per hour ranges from $1.81 (single)/$1.64 (monthly pass) on
    e-Tran to $6.82 (single)/$5.34 (monthly pass) on Roseville Transit (non-resident). The average single
    fare per hour is $3.35 and the average monthly pass fare per hour is $2.56. El Dorado Transit is
    roughly 25 percent below the average in both of these categories. If the average fare per hour values
    are applied to travel time between Placerville and downtown Sacramento, EDCTA fares would be on
    the order of $5.56 for a single ride and $187 for a monthly pass.

    Farebox Return Ratio – Also included in Table 48 is the systemwide farebox recovery ratio for each
    of the peer transit agencies. This data was obtained from the 2007 California Transit Association Fare
    Survey and does not include a break down of return ratio by type of service. Yolobus reported the
    highest systemwide farebox recovery ratio (26.0 percent) and Placer County Transit reported the
    lowest (11.0 percent). The fact that Placer County Transit has the lowest farebox ratio while fare per
    mile and fare per hour is relatively high compared to the other peers reflects the fact that commuter
    service (with a relatively high farebox return ratio) is a relatively small part of the overall Placer
    transit program. El Dorado Transit’s farebox recovery ratio is above the peer average of 19.7 percent.

    Travel Conditions – The type of terrain over which the peer commuter transit services also varies.
    Placer County Transit, El Dorado Transit, and Amador Transit are based in the foothills and therefore
    require travel up and down grades, whereas Yolobus has a rather flat journey from Davis to
    Sacramento. As mentioned above, transit operating costs are more closely related to vehicle hours not
    vehicle miles. The effect of hilly terrain on the cost of service or service life of an engine is minimal
    compared with the number of hours the bus is in service.

This analysis indicates that EDCTA’s fares are below the peer average when factors such as distance and
travel time are considered. An elasticity analysis was performed to determine the impact on ridership and
farebox revenues if EDCTA raised the base fare to $4.50 and the monthly pass price to $162.00, a 12.5
percent increase. Commuter route ridership would decrease from 126,700 to 125,300 annual one-way
passenger trips and farebox revenue would increase by $56,900. Fare on both a per-mile and per-hour
basis would still be less than the average value for the peer systems in the region.

Potential Increase in Local Route Fares

Finally, fares for similar systems were reviewed with regards to the local route system. The general public
base fare and monthly pass rate for nine rural transit agencies operating in Northern California were
reviewed, as presented in Table 49. Single ride fares range from $1.00 to $1.75 and monthly pass prices
range from $30.00 to $58.00. Both EDCTA’s single ride fare and monthly pass price are less than the
peer averages of $1.34 (single) and $46 (monthly pass). A reasonable alternative would be to increase the

Western El Dorado County                                                     LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                          Page 191
EDCTA base fare to $1.25 (with a corresponding proportional increase in other fare types). Based on a
fare elasticity analysis, this fare increase would decrease annual one-way passenger-trips by 6,200 or 4.4
percent, with a corresponding increase in fare revenue of $16,800 or 8.6 percent.




                  TABLE 49: Peer Fare Review - Local Routes
                                                                           General Public
                                                                         Base        Monthly
                  Provider                                               Fare         Pass

                  El Dorado County Transit                               $1.10             $33.00
                  e-Tran (Elk Grove)                                     $1.50             $60.00
                                            (1)
                  Placer County Transit                                  $1.00             $30.00
                  Yolobus                                                $1.50             $60.00
                  Yuba-Sutter Transit                                    $1.00             $30.00
                                                  (1)
                  Amador Regional Transit                                $1.00             $34.00
                  Roseville Transit                                      $1.50             $58.00
                                                    (1)
                  TART (North Lake Tahoe)                                $1.50             $45.00
                  BlueGo (South Lake Tahoe)                              $1.75             $50.00

                  Peer Average                                           $1.34             $45.88
                  EDCTA Percent of Peer Average                           82%                72%
                  EDCTA Ranking                                           6/9                7/9
                  Note 1: 40 ride book instead of monthly pass
                  Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Compiled from websites; January 2008




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                             Western El Dorado County
Page 192                                                                                      2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                                                                 Chapter 10
                                                                Short-Range Transit Plan
This Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) encompasses 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.
A graphic depicting the various plan elements is presented as Figure 37. This SRTP 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.

SERVICE PLAN
The service modifications to be accomplished under this SRTP are presented below. It should be noted
that the ridership forecasts presented below have been developed as conservative projections, based on
existing ridership patterns and typical observed ridership response to changes in service. Given recent
increases in gasoline prices, ridership could potentially grow beyond these projections.

El Dorado Hills Deviated Fixed-Route

Under this SRTP, scheduled transit service for trips within the central El Dorado Hills area will be
initiated. While it is important to initiate scheduled public transit service in El Dorado Hills, the ridership
potential is limited due to the geographic and demographic characteristics of the community. In order to
be effective, initial public transit services will need to be limited to a deviated fixed-route operated using
a single vehicle, from roughly 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM. In particular, this deviated fixed-route strategy will
avoid the need to provide an additional complementary paratransit van service, which would roughly
double the cost of service within El Dorado Hills. Similar to the existing EDCTA Diamond Springs and
Cameron Park Routes, a single bus should operate along a defined schedule, with adequate time to also
serve individual ride requests within three-fourths of a mile of the designated route.

Figure 38 presents the recommended route. One bus will be used to provide hourly service on the
following individual routes, alternating between the route segments:

    Departing the El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride, the El Dorado Hills Route will travel north along El
    Dorado Hills Boulevard, directly serving the Raley’s Center. The route will also divert off of El
    Dorado Hills Boulevard on Lassen Lane to service the Senior Center and then on Harvard Way to
    serve the Teen Center and other recreational facilities using the roadway through the Community
    Park, returning to El Dorado Hills Boulevard at St. Andrews Drive. The route will turn left on
    Francisco Drive, right onto Village Center Drive, and right onto Salmon Falls Road before returning
    southbound along the same route. With a left turn onto Town Center Boulevard and a right turn on
    Post Street, the route segment will terminate at the Park-and-Ride. This route segment would require
    roughly 30 minutes to complete.

    The southern portion of the route would consist of a smaller loop serving the Town Center and Town
    Center East areas, the multifamily area along Valley View Parkway, and the Sunset Mobile Home
    Park. From the Park-and-Ride, the route will turn left from Post Street onto White Rock Road, right




Western El Dorado County                                                       LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                            Page 193
                                                                                                                      FIGURE 37




Page 194
                                                              El Dorado County Transit Authority Short-Range Transit Plan
                                                                   LEGEND
                                                           HIGHWAY 50
                                                           ROADS                                                      SCALE
                                                           LAKES                                                 0                   2                                                                     49                         193
                                                           URBAN AREA
                                                           NEW HOURLY EL DORADO HILLS ROUTES                          IN MILES




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                                           REVISED HOURLY CAMERON PARK ROUTE
                                                           HOURLY EXPRESS ROUTE
                                                           EXISTING FOLSOM LAKE CENTER ROUTE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Y
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      LE




                                                           EXISTING PLACERVILLE ROUTE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    L
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 VA




                                                           EXISTING DIAMOND SPRINGS ROUTE                                                                                                                                                     49
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        SCHNELL SCHOOL




                                                                                                                                                                                                                              EN




                                                           ON DEMAND SERVICE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           RE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          G




                                                                                       VILLAGE CENT
                                                                                                   ER




                                                                              FRAN
                                                                                            NEW HOURLY
                                                                                          EL DORADO HILLS                                                                                                       50
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 D.




                                                                               CISCO
                                                                                              SERVICE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              IR




                                                                                                                      RD.           REVISE CAMERON




                                                                                                                  N
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            IN
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              LN.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                             R




                                                                                                                                    PARK TO PROVIDE




                                                                                                                 RO
                                                                                                                                                             KOTO RD




                                                                                                                      CA
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          FO




                                                                                                                                    HOURLY SERVICE




                                                                                                             AR
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             LER




                                                                                                             M
                                                                                                                      MB



                                                                                                            M
                                                                                                                        RI




                                                                                                            CI
                                                                                                                           D
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            FOW




                                                                                                                            GE
                                                                                                                             RD
                                                                                                                                .
                                                                                                                                                               ULTIMATELY COMBINE IPC & PLACERVILLE EXPRESS ROUTE
                                                                                                                                                                       EXPAND TO HOURLY EXPRESS SERVICE

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     49                     NEW PLACERVILLE
                                                                      50
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            ON DEMAND STOPS
                                                                                                                                              NEW MALLARD                              CA
                                                                                                                                                                                            NA             49
                                                                                                                                                LANE ON                                          L                                                                           50
                                                                                                                                              DEMAND STOP                                            ST
                                                                       OTHER PLAN ELEMENTS                                                                                                             .

                                                     * COMBINE PLACERVILLE EXPRESS/POLLOCK PINES ROUTES SHORT TERM
                                                     * ADJUST IRON POINT CONNECTOR TO BETTER SERVE PM COMMUTE                                                   I R
                                                                                                                                                             FA             D.
                                                     * CONVERT SUNDAY DIAL-A-RIDE TO TAXI COUPON PROGRAM                                                                 IR                                                                  NEW ESKATON
                                                                                                                                                                       RN                                                                     ON DEMAND
                                                     * ADJUST DOWNTOWN COMMUTER ROUTE 10 PM SCHEDULE                                                            FO
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 STOP
                                                     * CONSIDER RANCHO CORDOVA STOP ON EXISTING ROUTES
                                                     * ELIMINATE SOUTH COUNTY SERVICE                                                                 M
                                                     * INVESTIGATE GEORGETOWN/COOL/AUBURN SERVICE                                                      IS
                                                                                                                                                          SO                                                                                            SCALE
                                                     * EXPAND DIAL-A-RIDE                                                                       50           UR                                  49
                                                                                                                                                                    IF                                                                              0                    1
                                                     * INCREASE LOCAL ROUTE AND DIAL-A-RIDE FARES                                                                       LA
                                                                                                                                                            INI




                                                                                                                                                                          T
                                                                                                                                                                              RD
                                                                                                                                                                                   .                                                                    IN MILES
                                                                                                                                                          FOR




                                       TRANSPORTATION
                                       CONSULTANTS, INC.




   Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                    FIGURE 38

           Recommended El Dorado Hills Deviated Fixed-Route


                                                                 MARINA
                                         LAKE                    VILLAGE
                                        FOREST                   SCHOOL
                                        SCHOOL

                                                                                                           .
                                                    VILLAGE CENTER                                  Y RD
                                                                                     ALLE
                                                                                 EN V
                                                                           GRE

                                        VILLAGE                        JACKSON
                                        CENTER                          SCHOOL

                                                  EL DO
                                                   RADO
                                                       HILLS




                                                                                                                                      SCALE
                                                          BLVD




                                                                          EW   S DR.                                              0     .5           1
                  LEGEND                                         ST. ANDR
                                                           .




               HIGHWAY 50                                                        CSD TEEN                       ROLLING
                                                                                                                                      IN MILES
                                                                                                                 HILLS
               ROADS                                                              CENTER
                                                                                                                SCHOOL
               LAKES                     RECREATION
                                          FACILITIES
               EDH ROUTE
               ¾ MILE DEVIATION                                        HARVARD WAY
               SERVICE AREA (APPROX.)
                                                                                   SILVA VA
                                                                                            LLEY
                                                                                           PK
                                                                                              Y.




                                                                                                                        OAK MEADOW
                                                                                                                          SCHOOL




                                                                                                        RALEY’S
                                                                                                        CENTER
                                                                                  PARK




                                                        SENIOR
                                                                                                                ST. TOWN
                                                        CENTER
                                                                                                                                                         50
                                                                                                         ST
                                                                                                    PO            CENTER
                                                                                                        VI
                                                                                                         N




                                                                                                                   .
                                                                                                          E




                                                                                                                 RD
                                                                            LAT




                                                                                                        O  CK
                                                                                                     ER
                                                                               ROB




                                                                                                   IT
                                                                                          WH
                                                                                 E




                                                                                                                   VA
                                                                                                                      LLE




                                                                     PARK &
                                                                                                                        YV




                                                                      RIDE
  50
                                                                                                                          IEW
                                                                                                                             PK
                                                                                                                                Y.




                                                                                                            .
                                                                                                         LN
                                                                                                    ST
                                                                                  SUN CA

  TRANSPORTATION
  CONSULTANTS, INC.




Western El Dorado County                                                                                               LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                                                                    Page 195
    onto Valley View Parkway to a turn around near the southern end of the multifamily developments,
    return northbound on Valley View Parkway and Vine Street, turn left onto Mercedes Lane, and left
    onto Post Street back to the Park-and-Ride. This route segment would require roughly eight minutes
    to complete.

    Final route design will require more detailed evaluation of bus stop and routing opportunities on a
    site-by-site basis. For instance, the limited public street network may require the use of private
    driveways to access some specific stops, which will be dependent on discussions with private
    landowners. Designating stops directly along El Dorado Hills Boulevard will also require a site-by-
    site evaluation of available pavement width, as it would not be acceptable for transit vehicles to block
    travel lanes. This may require the route to make short deviations off of El Dorado Hills Boulevard at
    additional locations.

    Like the other existing EDCTA deviated fixed-routes, service will also be available on demand to any
    location within a three-fourths of a mile distance of the routes. As shown in Figure 38, this service
    area includes many of the key activity centers in El Dorado Hills, including the Lake Forest School,
    Marina Village School, Rolling Hills School, and the northern portion of the El Dorado Hills
    Business Park.

    This route should be scheduled to provide direct transfers to and from the IPC at the El Dorado Hills
    Park-and-Ride. Based on the current IPC service times at 10 minutes past the hour westbound and 53
    minutes past the hour eastbound, an example schedule for this service is as follows:

         North Route Segment
                Departure from El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride                 :12
                Arrive at EDH Community Service District Northbound          :19
                Arrive at Village Center                                     :26
                Arrive at EDH Community Service District Southbound          :34
                Arrive at El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride                      :40

         South Route Segment
                Departure from El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride                 :55
                Arrive Valley View Parkway                                   :58
                Arrive Mercedes Lane                                         :01
                Arrive at El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride                      :03

    Due to the limited hours of service, this route will not generate the full ridership identified for the
    fixed-route alternative discussed in Chapter 6. In particular, it will not serve commute trips. However,
    the schedule will still serve the majority of shopping and social service trips in the community, along
    with all after-school activities. Taking this factor into account, ridership on this new service is
    estimated to equal 11,000 passenger-trips per year.

    This service element is planned for implementation in FY 2009/10. While it is a key priority, time
    will be required to provide the additional vehicle and to establish bus stops. Therefore, service may
    not actually be implemented until FY 2010/11.

    In addition, future growth in ridership demand in El Dorado Hills may warrant expansion beyond this
    service plan within the five year SRTP period. If warranted and financially feasible, new services –
    such as expansion in service hours and expansion in service area – should be considered.



LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                  Western El Dorado County
Page 196                                                                           2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Community – Express Route Plan

Ultimately, the EDCTA route system will be reconfigured into a “Community – Express” route system,
with hourly express service along US 50 between Placerville Station and Iron Point Light Rail Station,
using three buses on a three-hour round-trip schedule, and a series of community routes serving individual
communities along the corridor. The following modifications will be implemented:

    The IPC and Placerville Express routes will be combined into a single route and a third bus added to
    provide consistent hourly “clock” headways along the corridor.

    The El Dorado Hills Route, described above, will serve as the community route for El Dorado Hills.

    The Cameron Park Route will be shortened by eliminating service along Mother Lode Drive east of
    Sunset Lane, allowing the schedule to be improved to hourly service. This route will serve both
    Cameron Park and Shingle Springs.

    One bus will operate the existing Diamond Springs and Folsom Lake College Routes on an hourly
    headway. Passengers will transfer to the Express Route at Missouri Flat Transfer Center (MFTC), or
    potentially at a replacement transfer center along Missouri Flat Road.

    Two buses will continue to operate the existing Placerville Routes on an hourly headway, providing
    the circulating service.

    One bus will operate the Pollock Pines Route, transferring to the Express Route at Placerville Station.

The Express Route could also serve the other Park-and-Ride lots at specific times during the commute
periods, or on request at other times. The specific location of transfer points in Cameron Park and Shingle
Springs will require detailed evaluation, considering the needs for convenient access by both the express
and community routes, and the benefits of serving both Park-and-Ride parking as well as commercial
centers.

In addition to the bus required for the El Dorado Hills route, this plan will require one more bus than
currently operated.

Under this SRTP, the service along US 50 (currently the Iron Point Express Route) will become a key
element of the local transit service within El Dorado County. After conversion to the express route, fares
for trips within El Dorado County will be set at the local route fare rate (currently $1.10 for general
public, $0.55 for seniors or disabled), while fares for service to or from Folsom will be set at the current
Iron Point Express rate ($2.50 for all passengers).

In addition, a half-fare ($1.25) will be provided for seniors or disabled passengers to and from Folsom.
The question of fares, as well as other facets of this plan element, will be re-evaluated prior to
implementation.

This plan element is currently not financially feasible given existing funding sources. Additional federal
funding sources (such as Job Access Reverse Commute funding) will be pursued to accomplish this
service improvement. Provision of additional local funding (such as from the Red Hawk Casino) could
speed the implementation of this plan element.




Western El Dorado County                                                     LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                          Page 197
Combine Placerville Express and Pollock Pines Routes

The hourly Placerville Express and Pollock Pines Routes, which currently meet at Placerville Station to
exchange passengers, will be combined into a single route. Service will continue to be provided hourly
using two buses over a two-hour-long route. Deviations will be provided east of Placerville. This plan
element, which will be implemented in FY 2008/09, will improve passenger convenience by avoiding the
need to transfer, at no change in cost to the transit service.

Sunday Taxicab Subsidy Program

The existing Sunday EDCTA General Public DAR services will be replaced by a taxi subsidy program.
This strategy has the potential of substantially reducing public subsidies needed to serve existing Sunday
mobility needs, or to alternatively expand the ridership served on Sundays. Under this option, passengers
will still make advanced reservations for service with EDCTA dispatchers. Rather than operating Sunday
service, however, the Sunday passenger schedule will be provided to the contracted taxi operator or
operators, which will then serve the scheduled requests. In addition to paying the DAR fare to the taxi
operator, the passenger will also sign a voucher filled in by the taxi driver providing the details on the trip
(including the passenger’s name). The taxi operator(s) will then provide a monthly invoice to EDCTA for
reimbursement of the difference between the collected fare and a contracted amount per trip (which could
vary by mileage). To be eligible for reimbursement, the passenger name would have to appear on the
passenger manifest provided by EDCTA. Assuming that ridership under a taxi program would not change
from the current DAR ridership, and at existing local taxi fares, this strategy will reduce annual operating
subsidy by approximately $46,800 per year.

This SRTP element, of course, is dependent upon successfully coming to an agreement with a qualified
local cab company to provide the subsidy service. The contractor(s) will also need to comply with federal
requirements. A successful taxi subsidy program will also require more administrative time than the
current DAR service, including oversight of the contract, ensuring that service providers maintain the
required insurance, vehicle inspection records, and driver records, marketing the service and responding
to passenger complaints.

To implement this program, EDCTA should develop a Request For Proposal (RFP) in FY 2008/09. Once
one or more contractors are selected through the RFP process, the conversion to the new service would
occur in FY 2009/10. It should also be noted that it is expected that this plan element can be implemented
without any negative impact on working conditions for EDCTA employees.

Modifications to Placerville Routes to Serve New Developments

New developments in the Placerville area will warrant the following modifications to the Placerville
Shuttle Routes, as shown in Figure 37:

    In the northwest portion of Placerville, one additional request-only stop will be established to serve
    “The Ridge at Orchard Hill” subdivision north of the Phoenix Center along Mallard Lane off of
    Green Valley Road.

    In the southeast portion of Placerville, one additional request-only stop will be established at the
    Eskaton Senior Community, currently under construction on Blairs Lane south of Broadway.

These modifications will be made once the associated developments are complete.



LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                   Western El Dorado County
Page 198                                                                            2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Temporary Changes to Local Routes to Address Construction Delays

Because of the limited roadway network (particularly across US 50) and the interlining of routes, the
EDCTA deviated fixed-route system can be significantly impacted by construction delays, with delays
along one individual route cascading across the remainder of the system. In order to keep service quality
at acceptable levels, EDCTA will consider temporary modifications to the deviated fixed-route operating
plan, in order to address long-term construction delays and to minimize the impacts of expected delays on
the overall route network. EDCTA staff will work with local and state project planners to identify the
need for changes to the route network and to identify the incremental costs of temporary services.
Optimally, these costs will be recouped from the budget of construction projects.

Shift Iron Point Connector Schedule Mid-Day to Better Serve Commute Times

The IPC schedule will be modified to better serve the afternoon commute period by shifting the schedule
after 11:40 AM one hour later. This will provide a more convenient 5:27 PM eastbound departure from
the Iron Point light rail station, allowing employees along the light rail line with roughly a 4:30 PM end
of the work day to make a transfer to IPC with only a short wait. The last run of the day (currently
departing westbound from Missouri Flat at 5:40 PM) will also be eliminated, resulting in a last westbound
departure at 4:40 PM. Table 50 presents the revised IPC schedule. This plan element also has the benefits
of generating a net increase in ridership of 800 passenger-trips per year, while reducing subsidy
requirements by $47,000 per year.

Serve Red Hawk Casino on Iron Point Connector

The IPC Route will be modified to serve the front entrance of the Red Hawk Casino, once the casino
opens. Due to the good access route, this additional stop can be served within the existing schedule,
minimizing the incremental operating cost. Fares generated by ridership to and from this stop, which will
largely consist of employees, will more than offset this cost, yielding a net reduction in operating subsidy
on the order of $40,000 per year.


    TABLE 50: Revised Iron Point Connector Schedule
    Stop
    Missouri Flat Transfer Center              5:40 AM    7:40 AM   9:40 AM 12:40 PM 2:40 PM 4:40 PM
    Fairgrounds Park and Ride                  5:45 AM       -          -          -            -           -
    Ponderosa Rd. Park and Ride                5:54 AM    7:54 AM   9:54 AM 12:54 PM 2:54 PM 4:54 PM
    Cambridge Rd. Park and Ride                5:59 AM    7:59 AM   9:59 AM 12:59 PM 2:59 PM 4:59 PM
    El Dorado Hills Park and Ride              6:10 AM    8:10 AM 10:10 AM 1:10 PM 3:10 PM 5:10 PM
    Iron Point Light Rail System               6:27 AM    8:27 AM 10:27 AM 1:27 PM 3:27 PM 5:27 PM
    Kaiser Permanente                          6:36 AM    8:36 AM 10:36 AM 1:36 PM 3:26 PM 5:36 PM

    Folsom Lake College - Folsom Campus        6:41 AM    8:41 AM 10:41 AM 1:41 PM 3:41 PM 5:41 PM
    El Dorado Hills Park and Ride              6:53 AM    8:53 AM 10:53 AM 1:53 PM 3:53 PM 5:53 PM
    Cambridge Rd. Park and Ride                7:02 AM    9:02 AM 11:02 AM 2:02 PM 4:02 PM 6:02 PM
    Ponderosa Rd. Park and ride                7:13 AM    9:13 AM 11:13 AM 2:13 PM 4:13 PM 6:13 PM
    Fairgrounds Park and Ride                  7:18 AM       -          -          -            -      6:18 PM
    Missouri Flat Transfer Center              7:27 AM    9:27 AM 11:27 AM 2:27 PM 4:27 PM 6:27 PM

Western El Dorado County                                                     LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                          Page 199
Provision of this service (seven stops per day in each direction) is in the best interest of EDCTA, as it (1)
reduces operating subsidy requirements, (2) serves a key new employment center, and (3) reduces the
potential for increased demand for DAR service (which is much more expensive to provide).

Consider Changes to Iron Point Connector Stops within Folsom

EDCTA will add a stop on the IPC Route at the major new Kaiser facility at Bidwell Street and
Broadstone Parkway, once it is completed. In addition, EDCTA will work with the City of Folsom to
encourage improved bus access to the existing Kaiser Hospital.

Continue to Serve Downtown Sacramento with Commuter Service

While it is inequitable that all of the subsidy requirements of this service are borne by the “residential”
end of the service and none by the “employment” end, it remains a fact that the EDCTA commuter
service to downtown Sacramento provides a strong benefit to the many El Dorado County residents that
use the service, in terms of commute cost savings and quality of life. This benefit, moreover, increases
with every jump in the price of gasoline. To the degree that the bus service reduces congestion along the
US 50 corridor upwind of El Dorado County, this service is also benefiting all El Dorado County
residents.

This plan recognizes, however, that the current scope of the Commuter Service represents the maximum
program that can be provided under current funding conditions. Given existing funding limitations, and
barring new funding sources (such as funding partnerships with other jurisdictions), any increase in
subsidy for Commuter Service effectively represents a reduction in services that can be provided within
El Dorado County. EDCTA has therefore effectively reached the maximum size of commuter service that
can be supported.

Consider a Rancho Cordova Stop on Some EDCTA Sacramento Downtown Commuter Runs Once
Improved Rancho Cordova Local Services are in Place

This plan does not include reinstatement of EDCTA service, using solely funds available to El Dorado
County, directly to Rancho Cordova employment sites. However, the City of Rancho Cordova is currently
developing plans for a comprehensive network of local services that could distribute passengers to and
from the EDCTA Downtown Commuter services from a single centralized transit station. Once these
plans begin to be implemented, EDCTA should review the potential to serve a single stop in Rancho
Cordova, with a minimum of two AM and two PM runs. In particular, this review should consider the
benefits of providing service opportunities for El Dorado County residents working in Rancho Cordova
against the delays that would be incurred by downtown commuters. Given the relatively small impact to
the EDCTA program, this alternative seems to have a high longer term potential, so long as plans to
expand local services in Rancho Cordova are realized.

Eliminate South County Service

Due to very low ridership (on the order of three one-way passenger-trips per day of service), the one-day-
a-week South County service will be eliminated (but not the Grizzly Flat Route). Additional marketing
efforts would not significantly increase ridership, and some of the existing ridership is occurring along the
Grizzly Flat Route and would still have at least some public transit service. EDCTA should market the
fact that South County residents can access the every-Thursday Grizzly Flat service in Somerset Corner,
avoiding the need to drive or be driven into the Placerville area.

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                  Western El Dorado County
Page 200                                                                           2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Investigate the Provision of Service Between Georgetown and Auburn

The population of the northwestern portion of the County, including the communities of Georgetown,
Cool, and Pilot Hill, totals approximately 8,000 residents that currently have no public transit services.
Residents of these areas tend to travel to Auburn for medical appointments, pharmacy visits, and other
needs. A service operated one day per week from Georgetown through Cool to Auburn (and on request to
Pilot Hill along the way) would provide at least a minimal public transit option to this substantial number
of residents. The most cost-effective means of providing this service would be to contract with an
Auburn-based public transit program. Placer County funds a transit service in this region and is currently
going out to bid for a new contractor. To ensure that the best contractor is identified and to comply with
regulations, EDCTA should release a Request For Proposals for this service and fully consider all
potential service contractors.

Expand DAR Service as Needed to Maintain Service Quality

The demand for DAR service is expected to increase over the plan period due to population growth and
aging of the population. Given this fact and existing capacity constraints, this Service Plan therefore
includes expansion in DAR equivalent to an additional 8 vehicle service hours per weekday to meet
existing and potential future demand. The daily vehicle service hours will be allocated by operations staff
depending on anticipated needs and observed operating patterns. Operations staff is best able to determine
how these additional resources would ultimately be used. One additional vehicle will be required.

Participate in Regional Efforts to Expand Intercity Transit Service Along US 50

While this focused plan has not identified a feasible service along US 50 between Western El Dorado
County and the Tahoe Basin (or beyond) based solely on the needs of Western El Dorado County, there
may well be sufficient need for such service when considered for the corridor as a whole. EDCTC and
EDCTA should work with others in the region to expand transit services along the US 50 corridor where
feasible. Any agreement regarding local funding allocation should reflect the relative need generated by
each area.

Service Options Evaluated But Not Included in Plan

The following services were considered as part of this planning study (as presented in Chapter 6, above)
but are not recommended for inclusion in the plan:

    Reinstatement of the Rancho Cordova Commuter Route. While surveys indicate there is some
    interest for at least occasional usage of this service by some El Dorado County residents, the results
    of previous services and the evaluation of transit demand conducted as part of this study indicate that
    ridership would not be sufficient to attain performance standards on an ongoing basis. Even if this
    were to occur, the service would require substantial increases in subsidy funding. EDCTA is now in a
    limited financial situation where all ongoing available funding is already allocated for transit services.
    Any increase in subsidy expended outside of the County therefore reduces opportunities to expand
    public transit services within El Dorado County (assuming that funding for all operating subsidy
    requirements is not provided by another jurisdiction, such as Sacramento County or the City of
    Rancho Cordova). As the City of Rancho Cordova’s local transit program expands to the point where
    it can effectively distribute transit passengers from a single centralized transit stop, however, EDCTA
    should consider serving a stop on a limited number of Downtown commuter runs.

    Additional IPC Runs. These were found to not be cost-effective as a stand-alone option, at least
    prior to opening of the casino.

Western El Dorado County                                                      LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                           Page 201
    Additional Pollock Pines Runs. These were also found to be not cost effective.

    Additional Sacramento Downtown Commuter Runs were not found to be effective, and would
    conflict with the need to focus any additional resources on local services.

    Sacramento Airport service would be very expensive to provide (if it were to be comprehensive
    enough to be effective), and would use public funding to directly “compete” with an existing private
    service.

    Expansion of DAR to Serve South County. This would not meet the performance standards for the
    DAR service.

CAPITAL PLAN
Fleet Replacement and Expansion

Based upon current mileage and condition, as well as current utilization rates for existing services, the
following vehicles will warrant replacement over the five-year planning period:

•   45-passenger buses (base cost of $500,000 per unit) – 6 in FY 2008/09, 1 in FY 2009/10, and 2 in
    2010/11

•   22-passenger buses (base cost of $102,000 per unit) – 7 in FY 2008/09, and 2 in FY 2010/11

•   4-passenger minivans (base cost of $47,000 per unit) – 4 in FY 2008/09, 1 in FY 2010/11, 1 in
    2011/12 and 1 in FY 2012/13

•   Staff car (base cost of $25,000 per unit) – 1 in FY 2010/11

Of the 26 total revenue vehicles to be purchased under this plan, 23 are required for replacement and 3 are
required for service expansion.

The 47-passenger buses (for commuter service) are intended to replace the existing 45-passenger Bluebird
buses currently in the EDCTA fleet. The specific vehicle type in need of replacement is no longer being
manufactured, and similar vehicles currently on the market do not have the specifications needed for
commuter service. It is important for the long commute trip that the buses be equipped with all forward
facing seats (as opposed to the typical urban transit bus, with partial side facing seats), as well as
amenities such as individual reading lights and high-back seats. For these reasons, it will be necessary to
purchase slightly larger “over the road” coaches. While the per-unit cost is roughly $100,000 greater than
the old model, they have a useful life of 20 years rather than 12 years.

Retrofit Diesel Buses to Improve Air Quality

Due to the lack of natural gas infrastructure in El Dorado County and the requirements of the service area,
Compressed Natural Gas engines are not a viable option. In the short term, continued reliance on diesel
technologies for the larger vehicles is recommended. Engines will be retrofitted in FY 2007/08 on eight
commuter buses to reduce particulate matter and nitrogen oxides.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                  Western El Dorado County
Page 202                                                                           2008 Short Range Transit Plan
EDCTA should also continue to pursue options to further reduce air emissions through biodiesel and/or
hybrid technologies. Biodiesel has the advantage of reducing particulates, hydrocarbons, and global
warming gases (at least if producing the fuel does not require additional clearing of forest lands), but it
does increase oxides of nitrogen. At present, moreover, it is not readily available in the Placerville area.
Hybrid diesel–electric buses are becoming increasingly common in the public transit industry, and can
reduce emissions by up to 90 percent from a conventional diesel bus. As hybrid buses can be $200,000 to
$250,000 more expensive than standard diesel buses, use of hybrids in the EDCTA fleet is dependent on
identifying new state or federal funding sources.

Improvements to Passenger Amenities

The following improvements will be made to the major passenger facilities:

    Central Transit Center – Construct Park-and-Ride, bus bays, and shelters. This is planned for FY
    2008/09.

    Bass Lake Road – While a private developer will provide the site and fund construction of 100
    parking spaces, EDCTA will provide funding to add an additional 100 spaces.

    Ponderosa Road Park-and-Ride – Reconstruction of existing facility to improve roadway
    geometrics and allow on-site bus movements, in FY 2008/09.

    Missouri Flat Road Park-and-Ride – Construct new bus transfer facility and 100 Park-and-Ride
    spaces. This would replace the existing transfer point along the west side of Missouri Flat Road south
    of Forni Road. Planned for FY 2010/11, using a combination of Proposition 1B, STA, and
    development fee funds. This project is dependent upon working with a private developer to obtain a
    site.

Security Enhancements

EDCTA will implement several measures to enhance security for passengers, employees, and the general
public:

    An alarm and video surveillance system will be installed at the maintenance facility. Installing an
    alarm and video surveillance system will help protect the property as well as safe-guard employees
    who work very early or late when few other people are around. $55,000 is budgeted for this
    improvement.

    An automatic gate will be installed on the bus yard. While specific costs have not been identified,
    $10,000 is included in the budget.

    EDCTA will install a mobile video surveillance system 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 $153,000.



Western El Dorado County                                                     LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                          Page 203
EDCTA will receive approximately $125,000 from the California Transit Security Grant Program State
Transit Assistance Agencies (CTSGP-STAA) portion of Proposition 1B. The balance of the money
required to finance these projects could come from TDA (STA) funds.

Solar Energy Arrays

EDCTA will pursue grant funding to install solar panels at the transit maintenance facility. Energy
conservation and alternative forms of energy have become increasingly important in recent years. Many
public entities have integrated alternative technologies such as solar power into their facilities and
operations. The City of Vacaville has installed solar arrays on the City Hall and at the Bella Vista Park-
and-Ride lot which produces electricity for city electric powered vehicles. In sunny California, large
buildings or structures such as a covered bus parking or maintenance facility would provide a good
location for solar panels.

EDCTA could benefit from installing solar arrays through the generation of energy and the reduction of
its carbon footprint. Additionally, having an alternative source of energy would enhance EDCTA’s ability
to keep operating in the event of a disaster. The cost of an array varies widely, but would likely be in the
range of $300,000 to $700,000. Funding could potentially be acquired through Proposition 1B – Public
Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA), as well as
through the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) which funds California Solar Initiative
projects.

Retired Van Donation Program

EDCTA will implement a program to provide older (but still useable) vans to qualifying agencies
providing public or client transportation in El Dorado County. This will help community based
organizations to expand mobility options that may not be economically feasible for EDCTA to directly
service. To be eligible for a van:

    The recipient must be a local non-profit organization or government entity whose primary purpose is
    to serve the elderly, disabled, or other element of the population with limited mobility options.

    The organization must be able to provide at least 100 one-way passenger-trips each month. While
    out-of-county trips can be included in this total, at least one end of each trip must be within Western
    El Dorado County. Documentation shall be provided to EDCTA prior to allocation of the vehicle that
    supports (1) the demand for at least 100 passenger-trips per month and (2) the organizational capacity
    to operate the service. During a two year provisional period, ridership data will be recorded (by day,
    origin/destination, and type of passenger) and reported monthly to EDCTA, after which the
    organization is released from reporting requirements and the van is considered to be owned by the
    organization.

    Preference is given to organizations which have the greatest need for the vehicle, reliable funding
    sources, and could provide a large amount of trips to mobility limited residents of Western El Dorado
    County.

    The community based organization must agree to repaint the van so that it is no longer recognizable
    as a public transit vehicle.

Additionally, EDCTA will make an effort to provide free driver training. EDCTA currently has six vans
that could be potentially provided to other organizations.


LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                 Western El Dorado County
Page 204                                                                          2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Transit Stops and Passenger Amenities

EDCTA will pursue a program to improve bus stops, including the provision of new shelters, benches,
signage, and schedule information displays. Table 51 presents a summary of near-term improvements. As
shown, shelters with benches and schedules will be installed at a total of 24 stops (including 15 to be
provided as part of the advertising agreement with Lamar Transit Advertising). Benches will also be
installed at three additional locations. In addition, EDCTA will install displays of bus schedules at all
other high activity stops (with ten or more boardings per day). Finally, EDCTA will strive to install bus
stop signs where feasible. Costs of these improvements (excluding shelters at the Park-and-Ride lots
discussed above and those borne by the advertising firm) are estimated to equal $72,200. In addition,
$30,000 is allocated prior to the implementation of the Community – Express route modifications for use
in improving transfer points between routes.

Enhance Transit’s Role in a Multimodal Alternative Transportation Network

Along with bicycle and pedestrian travel, public transit can play a key role in a comprehensive
transportation network for Western El Dorado County (and beyond) that is an alternative to private
automobile travel. In particular, transit services can aid in providing the longer inter-community portions
of individual trips, while non-motorized modes can serve the shorter local portions.

  TABLE 51: El Dorado County Transit Authority Bus Stop Improvement Program
                                                                             Improvement
                                                                       Shelter
  Bus Stop Location                                                    & Bench Bench Schedule
  1004 Fowler Way, Placerville                                           ■                  ■       Note 1
  1266 Broadway, Placerville                                             ■                  ■       Note 1
  Future Cameron Park Community Center                                   ■                  ■       Note 1
  Motherlode Dr & South Shingle Springs Dr (near Gold Harvest Market     ■                  ■       Note 1
  Motherlode Dr & South Shingle Springs Dr (near Family Chevrolet)       ■                  ■       Note 1
  Cold Springs Road Site 1 (Cold Springs Dental)                         ■                  ■       Note 1
  Cold Springs Road Site 2 (DMV)                                         ■                  ■       Note 1
  Marshall Medical Building, Palmer Drive, Cameron Park                  ■                  ■       Note 1
  Cimarron Road and La Canada, Cameron Park                              ■                  ■       Note 1
  Pleasant Valley and Oro                                                ■                  ■       Note 1
  Northeast corner of Pony Express Trail and Sanders Drive               ■                  ■       Note 1
  Northeast corner of Carson and Larson Road                             ■                  ■       Note 1
  Corner of Broadway and Pointview Drive, Placerville                    ■                  ■       Note 1
  Tentative location at US 50/Coloma Road (EDCA Lifeskills)              ■                  ■       Note 1
  Old City Hall                                                          ■                  ■
  Child Development (FLC)                                                ■                  ■
  Raley’s (Placerville Dr.)                                              ■                  ■
  Safeway (Cameron Park Place)                                           ■                  ■
  Placerville Senior Center (existing bench)                             ■                  ■
  Pleasant Valley/Church Street                                          ■                  ■
  Union Mine High School                                                 ■                  ■
  Ponderosa Park-and-Ride                                                ■                  ■
  Rodeo Road Park-and-Ride                                               ■                  ■
  Fairgrounds Park-and-Ride                                              ■                  ■
  M.O.R.E.                                                                        ■
  Gold Country Inn                                                                ■
  Lake Oaks/Patterson                                                             ■
  Note 1: Shelter and bench provided through advertising contract.


Western El Dorado County                                                     LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                          Page 205
To fulfill this potential, EDCTA will undertake the following:

    EDCTA will strive to provide bicycle lockers at all transit centers and park-and-ride facilities.

    The EDCTA will work to ensure that adequate bicycle parking is available at high-activity stops,
    focusing on those with observed or potentially high bicycle usage. Stops with high observed bicycle
    use of the vehicle bike racks will also be reviewed to identify if improved bicycle parking can avoid
    the need for the passenger to bring their bicycle along on the bus.

    Where physically feasible, EDCTA will provide three-position bicycle racks on transit vehicles.

EDCTA’s interest in bicycle/pedestrian facilities extends beyond the bus stop. At one end of their trip or
the other, virtually all transit passengers also travel on foot or on bicycle as part of their transit trip. A key
element of a successful transit system is a convenient system of sidewalks and bikeways serving the
transit stops. EDCTA will continue to work with the planning and public works departments of El Dorado
County, the City of Placerville, the City of Folsom, and other jurisdictions in the service area to review
construction plans and schedule priorities for pedestrian and bicycle improvements to coordinate with the
needs of transit passengers.

Advanced Public Transit System Technologies

Advanced Public Transit System (APTS) technologies are increasingly being implemented to enhance
system efficiency and safety. EDCTA has already implemented one low-cost APTS strategy through the
Zonar AVL and maintenance management system. Other APTS strategies that EDCTA will pursue
consist of the following:

    Implement a “Smart Card” program for the Commuter Service – This will be implemented as
    part of the larger regionwide transit smart card program. It will enhance transfers to and from
    connecting transit systems, increase the convenience of fare payment and processing, and improve
    EDCTA’s ability to monitor ridership.

    Mobile Data Terminals – “MDTs” will be considered as an expansion of the Zonar system. This can
    improve the speed and accuracy of communications between dispatchers and drivers, which is a
    particular benefit for the DAR service. It can also provide a security benefit by speeding emergency
    communications and allowing communication between driver and dispatcher without the knowledge
    of a perpetrator. As a first step, staff will investigate whether adequate communication systems are
    available to avoid “dead zones” and to define costs associated with an MDT program.

INSTITUTIONAL AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
Safety and Security

In addition to the capital security-related items discussed above, EDCTA will also enhance safety and
security by formalizing procedures between the transit agency and local emergency services. EDCTA’s
vehicles and well-trained employees constitute valuable community resources for providing transportation
in case of an emergency, particularly for disabled residents. A written Emergency Management Plan will
be developed, in coordination with the Office of Emergency Services, Public Heath Department,
Sherriff’s Department, school districts, social service programs, and other nearby transit agencies.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                     Western El Dorado County
Page 206                                                                              2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Conduct Limited Study of Local Route Transfer Policy

Unlike transit systems in larger urban areas (where time stamping of transfer slips is a standard practice),
the EDCTA local route transfer slips are valid for the remainder of the day, except for service on the route
where the slip is issued. This has the benefit of being relatively easy for drivers to administer. However,
with the growth in services (such as the implementation of the Placerville Express), this relatively lenient
policy has provided a potential for abuse, in that a passenger can potentially use the transfer slip to
conduct a round trip on the service with payment of only one fare. EDCTA will conduct a focused study
of transfer use on the local routes over a three to five day period to identify if transfer abuse is a
significant problem. By marking transfer slips, the pattern of use will be identified. As warranted based
on the results of this study, changes to the transfer policy may be implemented including the use of
differing transfers by time of day or time stamping of transfers.

Revise Sacramento RT Transfer Agreement

EDCTA will renegotiate the transfer agreement with Sacramento RT. While the majority of the
agreement is currently acceptable, it is necessary to eliminate the inequitable provision allowing
employees of one transit agency free passage on the other agency’s services.

Coordinate Services with the Red Hawk Casino

The Red Hawk Casino will soon become an important element in the overall El Dorado County
transportation scene, as a large generator of transit ridership. In other nearby areas (such as Yolo County),
Indian gaming operators and public transit systems have found ways to share resources and expand
services to the benefit of the casino, the transit operator, and the general public. As the Red Hawk Casino
and this SRTP both evolve over coming years, EDCTA and the casino operator should strive to find ways
to coordinate services that efficiently serve the overall Western El Dorado County community.

Improve Marketing Efforts

Marketing is an essential element of a successful transit program and merits greater emphasis within the
EDCTA program. Many of the service and capital elements discussed above will aid in marketing the
service. Other specific marketing efforts that will be implemented as part of this SRTP consist of the
following:

    Improve monitoring of service quality – particularly on-time performance – as improving the quality
    of an organization’s “product” is an important element of any marketing strategy.

    Develop a flyer for posting at Park-and-Ride locations and on Sacramento Commuter buses that
    details how the IPC along with Light Rail can be used to provide mid-day service options to
    passengers on the Commuter service. The fact that the IPC provides service every two hours over the
    working day from Sacramento back to El Dorado County should be marketed to commuter riders,
    including a notation on the commuter bus schedules.

    Use El Dorado Transit brand more consistently and prominently on all vehicles, signs, facilities, and
    materials.

    Develop a “testimonial” advertising campaign depicting how various types of residents can make
    convenient use of transit services.



Western El Dorado County                                                     LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                          Page 207
    Increase outreach to “gatekeepers,” such as social service program managers. Conduct presentations
    at senior complexes and social service program sites to encourage transit use, including a
    “familiarization” ride on a transit bus and free ride coupons.

    Form marketing partnerships with Raley's and other prominent county retailers.

    Work in partnerships with social service providers and other gatekeepers to increase communications
    with the Latino community. Provide schedule and route information in Spanish, both on the website
    and in paper form.

    Provide specific marketing programs for new services, such as El Dorado Hills local service.

    Develop a “Visiting El Dorado by Transit” page on the EDCTA website that outlines visitor
    attractions that can accessed by EDCTA services. This page should also detail how the Reverse
    Commute services can be combined with local routes to provide an enjoyable day trip to the
    Placerville area for visitors staying in downtown Sacramento.

    Specifically market to the Folsom Lake College community, including attending activity fairs and
    advertising in the student newspaper.

    Develop and maintain an email list that will be used to notify passengers of service changes or
    interruptions. An email service can be effective in both increasing loyalty among passengers, as well
    as to minimize complaints. This is particularly important to the EDCTA Sacramento Commuter
    service due to the potential for traffic and construction delays along the US 50 corridor. Initially, an
    email list of commuter passengers should be developed, followed by a separate list for local deviated
    fixed-route and DAR passengers.

Revise Minimum Farebox Return Requirement

In response to the results of the 2000 Census, the US Census Bureau designated a portion of the
westernmost portion of El Dorado County to be part of the Sacramento Urbanized Area. As detailed in
the FY 2004-06 Triennial Performance Audit of El Dorado County Transportation Commission prepared
by PMC in 2007, under state Transportation Development Act regulations it is appropriate to identify a
“blended” value for the minimum farebox return ratio.

  “If an operator serves urbanized and non-urbanized areas in the area of jurisdiction of a
  transportation planning agency, the transportation planning agency shall adopt rules and
  regulations to determine what portion of the public transportation services of the operator serves
  urbanized areas and what portion serves non-urbanized areas to determine its required ratio of fare
  revenues to operating cost, as defined by subdivision (a) of Section 99247, or its required ratio of the
  sum of fare revenues and local support to operating cost, or both. The transportation-planning
  agency shall submit the rules and regulations to the department for approval.”

The required minimum farebox return ratio for rural areas is set under TDA (for the claims process used
in Western El Dorado County) to be 10 percent, while the value for urbanized areas is 20 percent. The
formula for a blended farebox return ratio is typically based upon the proportions of population within the
urban versus rural areas. Based upon the most recent available US Census data, the pertinent figures are
as follows:

         Western El Dorado County rural area population            104,477 84.46%
         Western El Dorado County urban area population             17,800 14.54%
         Total Western El Dorado County population                 122,257 100.00%

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                  Western El Dorado County
Page 208                                                                           2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Factoring the population proportions by their applicable minimum farebox return ratio, the blended ratio
for Western El Dorado County as a whole can be calculated as follows:

         84.46% X 10% + 14.54% X 20% = 11.5%

It is therefore recommended that EDCTC submit this recommended change in the minimum farebox
return ratio to the California Department of Transportation for their review and approval, and
subsequently adopt the revised, blended minimum farebox return ratio.

FINANCIAL PLAN
Modifications to Fares

Given current economic conditions, EDCTA is currently planning on the following changes to the fare
program:

    The Senior Day Care subscription fare will be modified from the existing $2.00 per day to $3.00 per
    day starting in FY 2008/09 to match the fare for a DAR round trip. As most passengers use this
    service for a round trip, this fare increase will make the service more equitable. It will also help
    address the very low (2.6 percent) farebox return ratio on this service. Any future increases in the
    DAR fare will be matched by a parallel increase in the Senior Day Care subscription fare.

    The DAR Zone Fares in Zones A (El Dorado Hills) and B (Cameron Park) will be increased to match
    fares currently required for Zones D (Camino) and L (Pollock Pines). This is necessary to make the
    fare program more equitable by providing equal fares for similar transit trips east of Placerville and
    west of Placerville. Specifically, the following senior/disabled fare increases will be implemented
    (paralleled by other fare increases to and from Zones A and B):

    -    Zone A El Dorado Hills to/from Zone A El Dorado Hills: From $1.50 to $5.00
    -    Zone A El Dorado Hills to/from Zone C Placerville: From $2.50 to $6.00
    -    Zone B Cameron Park to/from Zone B Cameron Park: From $1.50 to $3.00
    -    Zone B Cameron Park to/from Zone C Placerville: From $2.00 to $3.50

    It is recognized that these reflect very substantial increases in existing fares. However, they are
    necessary to ensure that riders in the western portion of the DAR service area are paying roughly the
    same proportion of the costs of services as those passengers living in the eastern portion of the area.

    The DAR base fare will be increased from $3.00 to $4.00 for the general public and from $1.50 to
    $2.00 for elderly/disabled passengers in FY 2009/10. This fare increase is necessary to address the
    rising costs of providing services. In addition, a review of DAR fares charged at peer systems around
    Northern California indicates that the existing EDCTA elderly/disabled DAR fare is substantially
    below the peer average. This fare increase will result in an elderly/disabled fare very close to the
    existing peer average.

    In FY 2009/10, the Local Route fare will be increased from $1.10 to $1.25 for the general public and
    from $0.55 to $0.60 for elderly/disabled. Monthly passes will be increased from $33 to $38 for the
    general public, from $21 to $24 for elderly/disabled, and from $25 to $29 for students (Kindergarten
    through Grade 12). Since fares were last raised in 1994, inflation has increased costs by roughly 39
    percent. The resulting fares will remain below the existing average fare of eight peer transit services
    around Northern California ($1.25).


Western El Dorado County                                                     LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                          Page 209
    A $1.25 elderly/disabled fare will be established on the IPC, at 50 percent of the general public fare
    ($2.50). (Currently, there is no discount fare on this route). A monthly pass will be offered at $45 for
    elderly/disabled.

While this SRTP does not identify a specific increase in fares for Commuter Services, it is recognized that
a future increase in fares may be necessary over the course of this planning period to address increases in
the cost of services.

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 52
    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 SRTP
    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 seven-year period will total approximately
    $33,011,500 with the SRTP elements, which is a 7 percent increase from the base case total of
    $30,881,700. Next, ridership for each SRTP element was estimated, as presented in Table 53. The
    “base case” ridership reflects expected ridership assuming no changes in service. 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 combination of the
    Pollock Pines and Placerville Express routes), 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 a 2.5 annual increase in population and associated ridership demand. By FY
    2012/13, ridership is forecast to equal 499,000 one-way passenger-trips per year, which is 83,200
    trips over the base case forecast of 415,800. This indicates that the plan will result in a 20 percent
    increase in ridership by the end of the plan period.

    Based on the ridership figures presented in Table 53, the estimated farebox revenues are presented in
    Table 54. Again, these figures reflect the impacts of the fare modifications. As presented, the base
    case farebox revenues for FY 2012/13 are estimated at $929,900. Implementation of the SRTP
    elements will increase FY 2009/10 farebox revenues by $198,200, equal to a 21 percent increase.

    The next element necessary in the development of the SRTP is estimation of the capital cost for
    vehicles, passenger amenities, passenger facility improvements and operating equipment, as shown in
    Table 55 for each year of the Short Range Transit 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
     -   Diesel engine retrofits
     -   Security improvements
     -   Transit Center improvements
     -   Bus stop improvements, including bike lockers and racks

    Capital costs over the five-year period will total approximately $9,147,100.


LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                   Western El Dorado County
Page 210                                                                            2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                       TABLE 52: El Dorado County Transit Authority SRTP - Estimated Operating Cost
                                         All Figures in Thousands




Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                                                                             Projected    Projected       Projected   Projected   Projected   Projected   5-Year Plan
                                       Plan Element                                                           FY07-08      FY08-09         FY09-10     FY10-11     FY11-12     FY12-13       Total

                                                                       (1)
                                       Base Case Operating Cost                                               $5,647.3     $5,816.7 $5,991.2 $6,170.9 $6,356.1 $6,546.8                   $30,881.7
                                       Service Plan Elements
                                        Implement El Dorado Hills Deviated Fixed Route                                             $0.0     $231.2      $238.1      $245.2  $252.6            $967.1
                                        Implement Community -- Express Route Plan                                                  $0.0       $0.0        $0.0        $0.0  $716.8            $716.8
                                        Combine Placerville Express and Pollock Pines Routes                                       $0.0       $0.0        $0.0        $0.0     $0.0             $0.0
                                        Sunday Taxicab Subsidy Program                                                             $0.0     -$49.7      -$51.1      -$52.7   -$54.3          -$207.7
                                        Modify Placerville Routes to Serve New Developments                                        $1.4       $3.0        $3.1        $3.2     $3.2            $13.9
                                        Shift Iron Point Connector Schedule to Better Serve Commute Times                        -$46.7     -$48.1      -$49.5      -$51.0   -$52.5          -$247.7
                                        Serve Casino on Iron Point Connector Route                                                 $3.4       $3.5        $3.6        $3.7     $3.8            $18.0
                                        Eliminate South County Service                                                           -$12.4     -$12.7      -$13.1      -$13.5   -$13.9           -$65.6
                                        Georgetown -- Cool -- Auburn Service                                                       $0.0      $14.9       $15.3       $15.8    $16.2            $62.1
                                        Expand Dial-A-Ride                                                                         $0.0       $0.0      $286.0      $294.5  $303.4            $883.9
                                        Increased Dial-A-Ride Fares                                                                $0.0     -$25.1      -$25.9      -$26.6   -$27.4          -$105.0
                                        Increased Marketing                                                                       $10.0      $14.0       $19.0       $21.0    $30.0
                                        Subtotal Plan Elements                                         $0.0                      -$44.2     $130.9      $425.4      $439.6 $1,178.0        $2,140.8
                                                              (2)
                                       Net Operating Cost                                                     $5,647.3     $5,772.5 $6,122.2 $6,596.4 $6,795.7 $7,724.7                   $33,011.5
                                       Note 1: The FY 2007-08 costs are based on the EDCTA mid-year budget, minus contingency.
                                       Note 2: This analysis assumes an annual inflation rate of 3 percent.
                                       Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                          Page 211
Page 212
                                       TABLE 53: El Dorado County Transit Authority SRTP - Estimated Ridership
                                          All Figures in Thousands

                                                                                                                   Projected      Projected     Projected    Projected      Projected   Projected   5-Year Plan
                                       Plan Element                                                                 FY07-08        FY08-09       FY09-10      FY10-11        FY11-12     FY12-13       Total
                                                                     (1)
                                       Base Case Ridership                                                              367.3         376.5         386.0        395.7         405.6       415.8       1,979.6




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                       Service Plan Elements
                                         Implement El Dorado Hills Deviated Fixed Route                                                  0.0           8.8           10.8        12.4        12.8         44.8
                                         Implement Community -- Express Route Plan                                                       0.0           0.0            0.0         0.0        35.3         35.3
                                         Combine Placerville Express and Pollock Pines Routes                                            2.7           3.1            3.2         3.3         0.0         12.3
                                         Sunday Taxicab Subsidy Program                                                                  0.0           0.0            0.0         0.0         0.0           0.0
                                         Modify Placerville Routes to Serve New Developments                                             5.7           5.8            6.0         6.2         6.4         30.1
                                         Shift Iron Point Connector Schedule to Better Serve Commute Times                               0.7           0.8            0.9         0.9         0.9           4.2
                                         Serve Casino on Iron Point Connector Route                                                     13.6         19.1            21.9        22.5        23.2        100.3
                                         Eliminate South County Service                                                                  -0.2         -0.2           -0.2        -0.2        -0.2          -1.0
                                         Georgetown -- Cool -- Auburn Service                                                            0.0           1.1            1.4         1.6         1.6           5.7
                                         Expand Dial-A-Ride                                                                              0.0           0.0            8.0         8.2         8.5         24.7
                                         Increase Dial-A-Ride Base Fare                                                                  0.0          -0.5           -0.5        -0.6        -0.6          -2.2
                                         Increase Local Route Base Fare                                                                  0.0          -6.6           -6.8        -7.0        -7.2        -27.6
                                         Establish Discount Elderly/Disabled IPC Fare                                                    1.9           2.2            2.4         2.5         2.5         11.5

                                         Subtotal Plan Elements                                                            0.0          24.4         33.6            47.1        49.8        83.2        238.1
                                       Net Ridership                                                                    367.3         400.9         419.6        442.8         455.4       499.0       2,217.7
                                       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.




   Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                       TABLE 54: El Dorado County Transit Authority SRTP - Estimated Farebox Revenues
                                          All Figures in Thousands

                                                                                                  Projected   Projected   Projected   Projected   Projected   Projected   5-Year Plan
                                       Plan Element                                                FY07-08     FY08-09     FY09-10     FY10-11     FY11-12     FY12-13       Total




Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                       Base Case(Excluding Contract Service Revenues)                $821.5     $842.2      $863.3      $885.0      $907.2      $929.9     $4,427.5
                                       Service Plan Elements
                                         Implement El Dorado Hills Deviated Fixed Route                            $0.0      $11.8       $14.4       $16.6       $17.1         $59.9
                                         Implement Community -- Express Route Plan                                 $0.0        $0.0        $0.0        $0.0      $58.0         $58.0
                                         Combine Placerville Express and Pollock Pines Routes                      $3.5        $4.1        $4.2        $4.3        $0.0        $16.1
                                         Sunday Taxicab Subsidy Program                                            $0.0        $0.0        $0.0        $0.0        $0.0         $0.0
                                         Modify Placerville Routes to Serve New Developments                       $4.4        $4.5        $4.7        $4.8        $5.0        $23.4
                                         Shift Iron Point Connector Schedule to Better Serve Commute Times         $1.5        $1.7        $1.9        $1.9        $1.9         $8.9
                                         Serve Casino on Iron Point Connector Route                               $29.4      $41.3       $47.3       $48.6       $50.1        $216.6
                                         Eliminate South County Service                                           -$0.2       -$0.2       -$0.2       -$0.2       -$0.2        -$1.2
                                         Georgetown -- Cool -- Auburn Service                                      $0.0        $1.3        $1.7        $1.9        $1.9         $6.9
                                         Expand Dial-A-Ride                                                        $0.0        $0.0      $15.8       $16.2       $16.8         $48.7
                                         Increased Dial-A-Ride Fares                                               $0.0      $24.4       $24.4       $29.3       $29.3        $107.4
                                         Increase Local Route Base Fare                                            $0.0      $17.9       $18.4       $19.0       $19.5         $74.8
                                         Increase Senior Day Care Daily Fare                                       $1.0        $1.0        $1.0        $1.0        $1.0         $5.0
                                         Increase Zone A and B Dial-A-Ride Fares                                   $3.4        $3.4        $3.4        $3.4        $3.4        $17.0
                                         Establish Discount Elderly/Disabled IPC Fare                             -$4.2       -$4.8       -$5.3       -$5.5       -$5.5       -$25.3

                                         Subtotal Plan Elements                                        $0.0       $38.8     $106.2      $131.7      $141.3      $198.2        $616.2
                                       Net Farebox Revenues                                          $821.5     $881.0      $969.5 $1,016.7 $1,048.4 $1,128.2              $5,043.8
                                       Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                          Page 213
Page 214
                                       TABLE 55: El Dorado County Transit Authority SRTP 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

                                       45-Psgr Replacement Buses (1)
                                         Number of Buses                                              6           1        2              0           0            9




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                                         Total Cost                                            $3,090.0      $530.5 $1,092.7           $0.0        $0.0     $4,713.2
                                       22-Psgr Replacement Buses
                                         Number of Buses                                              7           0           2           0           0             9
                                         Total Cost                                              $735.4        $0.0      $222.9        $0.0        $0.0        $958.3
                                       22-Psgr Expansion Buses
                                         Number of Buses                                              1           0           0           1           0             2
                                         Total Cost                                              $105.1        $0.0        $0.0      $114.8        $0.0        $219.9
                                       4-Psgr Replacement Minivans
                                         Number of Vans                                               4           0           1           1           1             7
                                         Total Cost                                              $193.6        $0.0       $51.4       $52.9       $54.5        $352.4
                                       4-Psgr Expansion Minivan
                                         Number of Vans                                               0           1        0              0           0            1
                                         Total Cost                                                $0.0       $49.9     $0.0           $0.0        $0.0        $49.9
                                       Replacement Staff Car                                       $0.0       $26.5     $0.0           $0.0        $0.0        $26.5
                                       On-Board Surveillance & Other Security Improvements       $153.0        $0.0     $0.0           $0.0        $0.0      $153.0
                                       Central Transit Center                                    $650.0        $0.0     $0.0           $0.0        $0.0      $650.0
                                       Bass Lake Multimodal Facility                               $0.0        $0.0  $755.1            $0.0        $0.0      $755.1
                                       Missouri Flat Transit Center                                $0.0        $0.0 $1,134.3           $0.0        $0.0     $1,134.3
                                       Bus Shelters / Bus Stop Improvements                       $46.1       $47.5     $0.0          $40.9        $0.0      $134.5
                                       Total Capital Plan Elements                             $4,973.2      $654.4 $3,256.3         $208.6       $54.5     $9,147.1
                                       Note 1: All costs include 3 percent annual inflation.
                                       Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.




   Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
The results of Tables 52 through 55 were used to develop the Financial Plan, as presented for each of the
five years of the Short Range Transit Plan period in Table 56. This Financial Plan incorporates the
following 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 EDCTA 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 (such as fund administration, Tahoe transit programs, and bicycle programs), LTF
    annual income available to EDCTA has declined from a high of $3,965,013 in FY 2006/07 to an
    estimate of $3,706,607 in FY 2007/08 and a forecast of $3,555,073 in FY 2008/09. As shown in
    Figure 39, this represents a 10.3 percent drop in annual revenues in only two years. (Note that the use
    of carryover funds has “cushioned” the impact of this decline in the FY 2007/08 fiscal year.) This
    plan assumes that the decline will cease by the end of the FY 2008/09 fiscal year, but that future
    increases will be more moderate than those of the past. A 3 percent growth rate in subsequent years is
    assumed in this plan, reflecting inflation and growth in population.

    State Transit Assistance (STA) funding is assumed to increase by 3 percent per year from the current
    (FY 2007/08) level.

    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. Funds are
    largely allocated for the Central Transit Center in FY 2008/09, but otherwise are allocated for
    operations.

    FTA Section 5310 funds estimates were provided by EDCTA based on funding levels received by the
    Authority in recent years, and are allocated for capital purposes.

    FTA Section 5307 funds are largely allocated for purchases of vehicles for the Sacramento Commuter
    services. This funding source is also identified for a portion of the operating subsidies required for the
    US 50 Express route.

    FTA Section 5316 Jobs Access and Reverse Commute funds are allocated for a portion of the US 50
    Express route subsidy requirements.

    Interest income is assumed to equal a consistent $150,000 per year.

    Contract and miscellaneous revenues are assumed to increase with the assumed 3 percent rate of
    inflation.

    AB 2766 Vehicle Air Pollution Fees allocated through the El Dorado County Air Pollution Control
    District are assumed to continue to fund the Apple Hill and County Fair shuttle programs, and to
    increase by the rate of inflation. Note that “Spare the Air” funds to replace fares on high ozone days
    are not included.

    Proposition 1B PTMISEA (Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement and Service
    Enhancement Account) funds are allocated to fund bus purchases.



Western El Dorado County                                                      LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                           Page 215
TABLE 56: El Dorado County Transit Authority SRTP 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
Base Case Costs                                     $5,816.7 $5,991.2 $6,170.9 $6,356.1 $6,546.8                $30,881.7
Operating Plan Elements (From Table 49)               ($44.2) $130.9   $425.4   $439.6 $1,178.0                  $2,129.8
  Total Operating Costs                             $5,772.5 $6,122.2 $6,596.4 $6,795.7 $7,724.7                $33,011.5
Operating Revenues
  Passenger Fares (From Table 51)                    $881.0   $969.5 $1,016.7 $1,048.4 $1,128.2                  $5,043.8
  Annual LTF Operating Revenues                     $3,555.1 $3,661.7 $3,771.6 $3,884.7 $4,001.3                $18,874.4
  Annual STA Operating Revenues                      $844.0   $869.3   $895.4   $922.3   $949.9                  $4,481.0
  FTA Section 5311                                     $24.3  $491.4   $506.1   $521.3   $537.0                  $2,080.1
  FTA 5307                                              $0.0     $0.0     $0.0     $0.0  $329.4                   $329.4
  FTA 5316 - JARC                                       $0.0     $0.0     $0.0     $0.0  $219.6                   $219.6
  Interest                                           $150.0   $150.0   $150.0   $150.0   $150.0                   $750.0
  Contract Revenues                                  $296.6   $305.5   $314.7   $324.1   $333.9                  $1,574.9
  Miscellaneous                                         $2.1     $2.1     $2.2     $2.3     $2.3                    $10.9
  AB 2766 Air Quality Mitigation Funds                 $65.0    $66.9    $69.0    $71.0    $73.2                  $345.1
  Total Operating Revenues                          $5,818.0 $6,516.6 $6,725.6 $6,924.2 $7,724.7                $33,709.2
  Annual Balance: Transfer to Capital Fund             $45.5  $394.4   $129.3   $128.5      $0.0
CAPITAL PLAN
Capital Costs (From Table 52)                       $4,973.2     $654.4 $3,256.3         $208.6        $54.5     $9,147.1
Capital Revenues
  Capital Fund                                       $741.2        $0.0  $997.4            $0.0        $0.0      $1,738.6
  FTA Section 5307                                  $1,482.4       $0.0  $483.0            $0.0        $0.0      $1,965.4
  FTA Section 5310                                   $616.0      $522.7  $364.8          $364.8      $364.8      $2,233.1
  FTA Section 5311                                   $440.5        $0.0     $0.0           $0.0        $0.0       $440.5
  Proposition 1B PTMISEA                            $1,254.7     $179.2 $1,284.5           $0.0        $0.0      $2,718.4
  Proposition 1B CTSGP                               $125.5        $0.0     $0.0           $0.0        $0.0       $125.5
  Sacramento County STIP                             $312.9       $52.1  $126.6            $0.0        $0.0       $491.6
  Total Capital Revenues                            $4,973.2     $754.1 $3,256.3         $364.8      $364.8      $9,713.2
Capital Fund Balance
  Beginning Balance                                 $1,388.1  $692.4 $1,086.8            $218.7      $347.2
  Income -- Transfer from Operating Revenues           $45.5  $394.4   $129.3            $128.5        $0.0
  Expenses                                           ($741.2)    $0.0 ($997.4)             $0.0        $0.0
  Ending Balance                                      $692.4 $1,086.8  $218.7            $347.2      $347.2
Section 5307 Fund Balance
  Beginning Balance                                 $2,805.5 $1,667.6 $2,022.4 $1,904.9 $2,281.3
  Income                                              $344.5  $354.8    $365.5  $376.4    $387.7
  Expenses                                         ($1,482.4)    $0.0  ($483.0)    $0.0  ($329.4)
  Ending Balance                                    $1,667.6 $2,022.4 $1,904.9 $2,281.3 $2,339.6
LTF - Local Transportation Funds
STA - State Transit Assistance
FTA - Federal Transit Adminisistration
PTMISEA - Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement and Service Enhancement Account
CTSGP - California Transit Security Grant Program
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                           Western El Dorado County
Page 216                                                                                    2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                                                 FIGURE 39
                                                                      Annual LTF Revenue Available
                                                                  to El Dorado County Transit Authority




Western El Dorado County
                                       $4,500,000




2008 Short Range Transit Plan
                                                                                             $3,965,013
                                       $4,000,000
                                                                                                          $3,706,607
                                                                               $3,522,824                              $3,555,075
                                       $3,500,000


                                       $3,000,000
                                                                  $2,708,069

                                       $2,500,000
                                                     $2,272,892

                                       $2,000,000


                                       $1,500,000


                                       $1,000,000


                                        $500,000


                                            $-
                                                    FY 2003/04    FY 2004/05   FY 2005/06    FY 2006/07   FY 2007/08   FY 2008/09




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
                          Page 217
    Proposition 1B CTSGP (California Transit Security Grant Program) funds are allocated for in-vehicle
    and facility security improvements.

    Sacramento County State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds are assumed to provide
    a portion of the funds used for purchase of new Sacramento Commuter bus programs.

The financial plan presented in Table 56 first allocates all TDA funds (LTF and STA) to operating
programs. Excess operating funds are then allocated to the Capital Fund. As presented in the bottom
portion of Table 56, this analysis indicates that positive fund balances can be maintained through the plan
period for both the Capital Fund and the Section 5307 Fund. The Capital Fund is forecast to have a
minimum balance of $218,700.

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
FY 2008/09

    Combine Placerville Express and Pollock Pines Routes
    Modify Placerville East and West Routes to Serve New Developments
    Shift IPC Service to Better Serve Commute Times
    Serve Red Hawk Casino on IPC
    Refine route, schedule and bus stop locations for El Dorado Hills Route
    Eliminate the South County Service
    Prepare Request For Proposals for Georgetown – Cool – Auburn Service
    Prepare Request For Proposals for Sunday Taxicab Subsidy Program
    Modify El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park DAR zone fares
    Establish discount Elderly/Disabled fare on IPC
    Increase Senior Day Care fare
    Conduct review of Local Route transfer use
    Develop improved marketing materials
    Purchase a total of 18 vehicles for replacement/expansion, including one bus for the El Dorado Hills
    route
    Implement Retired Vehicle Donation Program
    Install new bus stop shelters and benches
    Construct Central Transit Center
    Implement security improvements

FY 2009/10

    Initiate El Dorado Hills Route
    Replace Sunday DAR Service with Sunday Taxicab Subsidy Program
    Initiate contracted Georgetown – Cool – Auburn Service
    Increase Local Route and DAR Fares
    Conduct expanded marketing efforts
    Conduct site selection and preliminary design study for Missouri Flat Transit Center
    Purchase one replacement commuter bus plus one van for DAR expansion, and replace a staff car
    Install new bus stop shelters and benches




LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.                                                Western El Dorado County
Page 218                                                                         2008 Short Range Transit Plan
FY 2010/11

    Expand DAR
    Purchase a total of five replacement vehicles
    Construct Missouri Flat Transit Center
    Conduct expanded marketing efforts
    Construct Bass Lake Multimodal Facility

FY 2011/12

    Finalize schedules and transfer points for US 50 Express Route and modified Local Routes
    Purchase one expansion bus and one replacement van
    Conduct expanded marketing efforts

FY 2012/13

    Implement Community/Express Route Plan
    Purchase one replacement van
    Conduct expanded marketing efforts
    Prepare updated Short Range Transit Plan




Western El Dorado County                                                 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2008 Short Range Transit Plan                                                                      Page 219

								
To top