Placer County Transit Short Range Transit Plan Update

PLACER COUNTY TRANSIT SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN UPDATE

Final Report

Prepared for the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency

Prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. June 6, 2005

PLACER COUNTY TRANSIT SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN UPDATE

Final Report

Prepared for the

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency 550 High Street, Suite 107 Auburn, California 95603

Prepared by

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

June 6, 2005

LSC #037290

Table of Contents

Chapter Page

1 Introduction...... 1-1

2 Study Area Characteristics...... 2-1 Major Activity Centers...... 2-3 Employment...... 2-9 Population and Housing...... 2-20

3 Transportation Services...... 3-1 Overview of Western Placer County Transit Operators ...... 3-1 Placer County Transit ...... 3-5 Auburn Transit...... 3-26 Lincoln Transit...... 3-39 Roseville Transit...... 3-51 Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA)...... 3-79 Summary of Western Placer County Transit Operators ...... 3-91 Other Transportation Providers...... 3-94

4 Transit Demand Analysis...... 4-1 Total Non-Commuter Demand by Transit Modal Split...... 4-1 Total Non-Commuter Demand by Segment ...... 4-3 General Public Commuter Transit Demand...... 4-4 Demand Estimation for College Students...... 4-6 Summary of Demand ...... 4-6 Existing Western Placer County Commute Patterns ...... 4-6 Future Trends in Commuting...... 4-8 Met versus Unmet Needs...... 4-12

5 Regionwide Transit Goals and Standards...... 5-1 Service Efficiency Goal...... 5-1 Service Effectiveness Goal...... 5-3 Service Quality Goal...... 5-4 Accessibility Goal...... 5-6 Planning and Management Goal...... 5-6

6 Transit-Friendly Site Design...... 6-1 Site Design Strategies...... 6-1 Applying the Strategies...... 6-7

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Page i

Table of Contents

Chapter Page

7 Types of Transit Service ...... 7-1 Traditional Fixed-Route Service...... 7-1 Demand Response Service...... 7-1 Route Deviation Service...... 7-2 Checkpoint Deviation Service ...... 7-2 User-Side Subsidy...... 7-2

8 Regional Institutional Alternatives ...... 8-1 Transit District Formed Through a Joint Powers Agreement...... 8-2 Regional Transit Coordinating Committee...... 8-3 County Board of Supervisors...... 8-4 Fare Levels...... 8-5

9 Placer County Transit Service Alternatives...... 9-1 Status Quo Service...... 9-1 Fixed-Route/Commuter Service Alternatives...... 9-5 Comparison of Service Alternatives...... 9-24

10 Placer County Transit Capital Alternatives ...... 10-1 Vehicle Alternatives...... 10-1 Other Capital Improvements...... 10-7 Advanced Public Transit System Technologies ...... 10-10

11 Placer County Transit Other Alternatives...... 11-1 Institutional and Management Alternatives...... 11-1 Financial Alternatives...... 11-4

12 Placer County Transit Short Range Transit Plan ...... 12-1 Service Plan ...... 12-1 Potential Future Service Plan Elements...... 12-9 Capital Plan...... 12-11 Potential Future Capital Plan Elements ...... 12-15 Institutional and Management Plan...... 12-18 Financial Plan...... 12-24 Implementation Plan...... 12-35

APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Page ii Short Range Transit Plan Update

List of Tables

Table Page

1 Western Placer County Employment by Location...... 2-10 2 Western Placer County Employment by Sector...... 2-11 3 Employees Commuting To and From Placer County...... 2-13 4 Summary of Home-Based Work Person-Trips to Employment in Placer County ...... 2-14 5 Summary of Total Placer County Resident Home-Based Work Person-Trips...... 2-15 6 Western Placer County 2002 Major Employers ...... 2-19 7 Western Placer County Population by Location...... 2-21 8 Western Placer County Housing Units by Location...... 2-23 9 Western Placer County Summary Demographic Data...... 2-25 10 Western Placer County Transit Operators Fare Comparison...... 3-3 11 Western Placer County Transit Operators Multi-Ride Ticket Comparison...... 3-4 12 PCT Ridership by Route by Month, FY 2001-02...... 3-11 13 PCT Average Fixed-Route Boardings by Route by Hour of Day ...... 3-12 14 Placer County Transit Average Weekday Bus Stop Activity ...... 3-14 15 PCT Service Miles and Hours by Route, FY 2001-02...... 3-16 16 PCT Vehicle Inventory ...... 3-17 17 PCT Revenues, FY 2001-02 ...... 3-19 18 PCT Expenses and Cost Model, FY 2001-2002 ...... 3-20 19 PCT Service Performance Analysis, FY 2001-02 ...... 3-22 20 Auburn Transit Average Weekday Bus Stop Activity...... 3-28 21 Auburn Transit Route Deviations ...... 3-30 22 Auburn Transit Vehicle Fleet...... 3-30 23 Auburn Transit Revenues, FY 1997-98 to FY 2001-02 ...... 3-32 24 Auburn Transit Operating Expenditures and Cost Model, FY 2001-02...... 3-34 25 Auburn Transit Systemwide Performance Analysis...... 3-35 26 Lincoln Transit Ridership, FY 2001-02...... 3-40 27 Lincoln Transit Average Weekday Bus Stop Activity ...... 3-41 28 Lincoln Transit Vehicle Fleet ...... 3-42 29 Lincoln Transit Revenues, FY 1998-99 to FY 2001-02 ...... 3-44 30 Lincoln Transit Operating Expenditures and Cost Model, FY 2001-02...... 3-45 31 Lincoln Transit Systemwide Performance Analysis...... 3-47 32 Roseville Transit Annual Ridership by Service...... 3-54 33 Roseville Transit Monthly Ridership by Service, FY 2001-2002 ...... 3-55 34 Roseville Transit Monthly Fixed-Route Ridership by Route, FY 2001-02...... 3-56 35 Roseville Transit Average Daily Ridership by Day of Week for June 2002...... 3-57 36 Roseville Transit Boardings by Hour of Day ...... 3-58 37 Roseville Transit Average Weekday Bus Stop Activity...... 3-61 38 Roseville Transit Commuter Ridership by Run for January to June 2002 ...... 3-64

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Page iii

List of Tables

Table Page

39 Roseville Transit Monthly Vehicle Service Hours by Service, FY 2001-02 & 2002-03...... 3-66 40 Roseville Transit Monthly Revenue Miles by Service, FY 2001-02 & 2002-03 ...... 3-67 41 Roseville Transit Vehicle Inventory ...... 3-68 42 Park-and-Ride Facilities in Roseville ...... 3-69 43 Roseville Transit Revenue for FY 2001-02...... 3-71 44 Roseville Transit Operating Expenses and Cost Model, FY 2001-02...... 3-72 45 Roseville Transit Performance Indicators, FY 2001-02 ...... 3-73 46 CTSA TDA-Funded Monthly Ridership by Service, FY 2001-2002...... 3-80 47 CTSA TDA-Funded Monthly Vehicle Service Hours by Service, FY 2001-2002 ...... 3-82 48 CTSA TDA-Funded Monthly Vehicle Service Miles by Service, FY 2001-2002...... 3-82 49 CTSA Vehicle Fleet Roster ...... 3-84 50 CTSA Funding Sources, FY 1997-98 to FY 2001-02 ...... 3-85 51 CTSA Annual Operating Expense and Cost Model, FY 2001-02...... 3-86 52 CTSA Performance Indicators, FY 2001-02 ...... 3-88 53 Summary of Western Placer County Transit Providers, Fiscal Year 2002-02 ...... 3-92 54 Greyhound Lines Incorporated Departures in Western Placer County ...... 3-98 55 Estimated Potential Transit Demand by Census Tract in 2005 ...... 4-2 56 Placer County Commuters ...... 4-5 57 Estimated 2002 Total Home-Based Work Person-Trip Interchange in the Sacramento Region...... 4-9 58 Estimated 2005 Total Home-Based Work Person-Trip Interchange in the Sacramento Region...... 4-10 59 Western Placer County Goals and Standards for Transit Service...... 5-2 60 Comparison of Typical and Transit Oriented Design Developments...... 6-7 61 California Transit Systems Fare Review ...... 8-7 62 Placer County Transit Service Alternatives...... 9-3 63 Placer County Transit Service Alternatives Performance Analysis ...... 9-25 64 Placer County Transit Plan – Estimated Operating Cost...... 12-26 65 Placer County Transit Plan – Estimated Ridership...... 12-27 66 Placer County Transit Plan – Estimated Farebox Revenues...... 12-29 67 Placer County Transit Capital Plan...... 12-30 68 Placer County Transit Financial Operating Plan ...... 12-31 69 TDA Funding Projections...... 12-32 70 PCT Use of TDA Funds...... 12-33

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Page iv Short Range Transit Plan Update

List of Figures

Figure Page

1 Site and Location Map...... 2-2 2 Major Activity Centers in Western Placer County ...... 2-5 3 Major Activity Centers in Roseville ...... 2-6 4 2002-05 Change in Daily Commute Trips to Placer County Jobs...... 2-16 5 Western Placer County Commute Pattern in 2005 ...... 2-17 6 Western Placer County Population Growth by Location, 2005 to 2010...... 2-22 7 Placer County Block Groups ...... 2-27 8 Elderly Population by Census Block Group in 2000...... 2-29 9 Mobility Limited Population by Census Block Group in 2000 ...... 2-30 10 Population Below Poverty Level by Census Block Group in 2000...... 2-31 11 Zero Vehicle Households by Census Block Group in 2000 ...... 2-32 12 Estimated Transportation Development Act Funding for Western Placer County, FY 2001-02...... 3-7 13 Transit Service in Western Placer County...... 3-8 14 PCT Annual Ridership Fiscal Year 2001-02 ...... 3-23 15 PCT Annual Operating Subsidy Fiscal Year 2001-02...... 3-23 16 PCT Average Productivity Fiscal Year 2001-02 ...... 3-24 17 PCT Subsidy Per Passenger-Trip Fiscal Year 2001-02 ...... 3-24 18 PCT Operating Farebox Recovery Ratio Fiscal Year 2001-02 ...... 3-25 19 Auburn Transit Ridership, FY 2001-02...... 3-28 20 Auburn Transit Annual Ridership Fiscal Years 1997-98 to 2001-92...... 3-36 21 Auburn Transit Annual Operating Subsidy Fiscal Years 1997-98 to 2001-02...... 3-36 22 Auburn Transit Average Productivity Fiscal Years 1997-98 to 2001-02...... 3-37 23 Auburn Transit Subsidy Per Passenger-Trip Fiscal Years 1997-98 to 2001-02...... 3-37 24 Auburn Transit Farebox Recovery Ratio Fiscal Years 1997-98 to 2001-02 ...... 3-38 25 Lincoln Transit Annual Ridership Fiscal Years 1997-98 to 2001-02...... 3-48 26 Lincoln Transit Annual Operating Subsidy Fiscal Years 1997-98 to 2001-02 ...... 3-48 27 Lincoln Transit Average Productivity Fiscal Years 1997-98 to 2001-02...... 3-49 28 Lincoln Transit Subsidy Per Passenger-Trip Fiscal Years 1997-98 to 2001-02...... 3-49 29 Lincoln Transit Farebox Recovery Ratio Fiscal Years 1997-98 to 2001-02...... 3-50 30 Roseville Transit Annual Ridership Fiscal Year 2001-02 ...... 3-75 31 Roseville Transit Annual Operating Subsidy Fiscal Year 2001-02...... 3-75 32 Roseville Transit Average Productivity Fiscal Year 2001-02 ...... 3-77 33 Roseville Transit Subsidy Per Passenger-Trip Fiscal Year 2001-02...... 3-77 34 Roseville Transit Farebox Recovery Ratio Fiscal Year 2001-02 ...... 3-78 35 CTSA Annual Ridership Fiscal Year 2001-02 ...... 3-89 36 CTSA Annual Operating Subsidy Fiscal Year 2001-02...... 3-89 37 CTSA Average Productivity Fiscal Year 2001-02 ...... 3-90 38 CTSA Subsidy Per Passenger-Trip Fiscal Year 2001-02 ...... 3-90

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Page v

List of Figures

Figure Page

39 CTSA Farebox Recovery Ratio Fiscal Year 2001-02...... 3-91 40 Western Placer County Transit Demand by Segment in 2005 ...... 4-7 41 Western Placer County Commute Patterns in 2005...... 4-11 42 Typical Development...... 6-5 43 Transit Oriented Design Development ...... 6-6 44 Potential Modifications to Lincoln/Rocklin/Sierra College Route...... 9-12 45 Potential Service to Unincorporated Placer County West & Southwest of Roseville... 9-17 46 Potential New Bickford Ranch Service ...... 9-19 47 Potential New Auburn-Folsom Service ...... 9-21 48 PCT Service Alternatives Annual Ridership ...... 9-26 49 PCT Service Alternatives Annual Operating Subsidy ...... 9-27 50 PCT Service Alternatives Ridership/VSH ...... 9-29 51 PCT Service Alternatives Ridership/VSM ...... 9-30 52 PCT Service Alternatives Operating Subsidy/Passenger-Trip ...... 9-31 53 PCT Service Alternatives Operating Farebox Recovery Ratio ...... 9-32 54 PCT Short Range Transit Service and Capital Plan...... 12-36

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Page vi Short Range Transit Plan Update

Chapter 1 Introduction

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

The Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA), aware of the importance of transportation issues, has retained LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., to prepare Short Range Transit Plan Updates (SRTPs) for Western Placer County transit operators, including Placer County Transit, Auburn Transit, Lincoln Transit, Roseville Transit, and Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA). The studies provide an opportunity to develop plans that will tailor transit services to conditions during the plan period. This particular document is a compilation of previous supporting data developed for the five SRTPs, and represents the Short Range Transit Plan for Placer County Transit.

The first four chapters of this document present the characteristics of the study area, including demographic factors, a review of the operating histories of the five agencies, and an updated analysis of the demand for transit services in the study area. Chapter 5 presents a series of goals, objectives and performance standards that were based on those developed in the previous Short Range Transit Plan, although they were updated to reflect current and planned future conditions. Chapter 6 presents a general discussion on the types of transit services operated in the United States. This chapter is followed by chapters presenting a series of alternatives developed using public comments submitted during the study process, as well as the professional judgment of the Consultant Team and staff from the various agencies that provide public transportation services in the region. The final chapter presents the steps that Placer County Transit will take over the seven year Plan period to improve and enhance transit services.

The study affords the leaders and transportation providers of the area an opportunity to take an in-depth look at the transit system currently in place, identify the optimal manner in which transit can meet the public’s needs within the study area, and carefully identify where transit resources should be devoted over the Plan period.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 1, Page 1

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter1, Page 2 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Chapter 2 Study Area Characteristics

Placer County is located in north-central California, northeast of Sacramento. The County stretches from the agricultural lands of the Sacramento Valley to Lake Tahoe in the Sierra Nevada range. The study area, as illustrated in Figure 1, comprises the portion of Placer County that lies west of the Sierra Nevada crest. The following incorporated cities and towns (and their estimated 2000 populations) are included in the study area:

Auburn, the county seat, has a population of 11,920, Colfax, has a population of 1,610, Lincoln, has a population of 12,900, Loomis, has a population of 6,075, Rocklin, has a population 37,670, and Roseville, by far the largest community, with 79,560 persons.

The study area also includes a number of unincorporated communities. The population of the unincorporated western Placer County study area in 2000 is estimated at 87,410, while the total 2000 study area population is estimated at 236,241.

The major east/west access is provided by Interstate 80, connecting the study area with Sacramento and the Bay Area to the west and with Truckee, California, and Reno, Nevada, to the east. North/south highway access to the area is provided by State Highway 49, which connects the area with Grass Valley and Nevada City to the north and Placerville to the south, and by State Highway 65, which connects the area with Marysville and Yuba City to the north.

Five transit operators in Western Placer County are the subjects of this study:

Placer County Transit (PCT): PCT, operated by the County of Placer Department of Public Works, operates six shuttle services on weekdays and Saturdays throughout the western slope of the County.

Auburn Transit: Operated by the City of Auburn Public Works Department, Auburn Transit operates two deviated fixed-routes throughout the City on weekdays, one route on weekday evenings, and one route on Saturdays.

Lincoln Transit: The City of Lincoln Public Works Department operates weekday service throughout the day that is geared toward school children, though it is also open to the general public.

Roseville Transit: Roseville Transit, administered by the City of Roseville, includes nine fixed-routes, city-wide demand-response service, and commuter service to downtown Sacramento. All services operate weekdays. The demand-response and fixed-route services also operate on Saturdays.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 2, Page 1

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 2, Page 2 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA): CTSA, a division of PRIDE Industries, receives state Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 4.5 funding to operate community transit services (i.e., services linking intra community origins and destinations) for persons who cannot use conventional transit services.

The current operations of these transit systems are discussed in detail in Chapter 3 of this document. The study will also address transit services within Rocklin, Colfax, and Loomis. Other transportation services available in the study area are discussed as well.

MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS

The major activity centers in the study area are listed below. Figure 2 illustrates the major activity centers for the study area, with the exception of Roseville. Figure 3 shows the location of Roseville major activity centers.

Western Placer County, Excluding Roseville

Activity Centers for Seniors, Persons with Disabilities, and Low-Income Persons

Auburn Ravine Terrace, 750 Auburn Senior Nutrition Project, 5725 Shannon Ravine Road Bay Drive, Rocklin Emerald Hills, 11550 Education Street, Senior Nutrition Project, 511 5th Street, Auburn Lincoln Golden Sierra Job Training, 11549 F Auburn Multimodal Center, Nevada Avenue, Auburn Street and Blocker Street Job Service, 150 Harrison Avenue, Colfax Amtrak Station, 99 Railroad Auburn Street Lincoln Golden Club, 511 5th Street, Rocklin Amtrak Station, Rocklin Road Lincoln and Railroad Street Pride Industries, 13080 Earhart Avenue, Loomis Multimodal Center, Taylor Auburn Street and Webb Street

Medical Facilities

Adolescent Intercept, 220 Douglas Lincoln Manor Inc., 1500 3rd Street, Drive, Lincoln Lincoln Auburn Sutter Faith Community Sutter Medical, 685 Twelve Bridges, Hospital, 11815 Education Street Lincoln Auburn Wellness Center, 1119 High Street

Educational

Colfax High School, 24995 Ben Taylor Lincoln High School, 790 J Street Road Maidu High School, 3775 Richardson Horizon Instructional Systems, 1530 3rd Drive, Auburn Street, # 100, Lincoln

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 2, Page 3

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 2, Page 4 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 2, Page 5

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 2, Page 6 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Phoenix High School, 870 J Street, Auburn High School, 275 Orange Street, Lincoln Auburn Placer ESL Services, 228 Sacramento Sierra College, 5000 Rocklin Rd Street,

Government

County Offices at DeWitt Center, 2962 Rocklin City Hall, 3970 Rocklin Road Richardson Drive Auburn Library, 350 Nevada Street Auburn City Hall and Courthouse, 1225 Colfax Library, 2000 Church Street Lincoln Way Lincoln Library, 590 5th Street Colfax City Hall, Colfax Road Loomis Library, 6050 Library Drive Lincoln City Hall, 640 5th Street Penryn Library, 2215 Rippey Road Loomis City Hall, 6140 Horseshoe Bar Rocklin Library, 5460 5th Street Road

Retail

Auburn’s “Oldtown” and “Downtown” Country Gables Center, 6861 Douglas Corridors Road, Lincoln Rainbow Market, G Street between 2nd Colfax Downtown District. & 3rd Streets, Lincoln Bel Air, 2222 SR 49, Auburn Rocklin Sierra Meadows Plaza Bell Road & SR 49 shopping area Auburn Town Center on Elm Street Safeway, 405 SR 65

Parks

Auburn City Community Center, 200 Regional Park, Dry Creek Road and SR Sacramento Street 49, Auburn Recreation Park, Recreation Drive and McBean Park, 61 McBean Park Drive, Auburn-Folsom Road, Auburn Lincoln

Roseville

Activity Centers for Seniors, Persons with Disabilities, and Low-Income Persons

American Cancer Society, 151 North Salvation Army, 102 Lincoln Street Sunrise Boulevard St. Vincent De Paul, 139 Riverside Pride Industries Roseville, 300 Berry Avenue Street Foothill Volunteer Center, 201 Riverside Maidu Community Center, 1550 Maidu Avenue Drive Gates of Learning Center, 1780 Vernon Alta California Regional Center, 807 Street Douglas Boulevard Sierra Family Services, 424 Vernon Association for Retarded Citizens, 700 Street Douglas Boulevard Amtrak Station, 201 Pacific Street Roseville Adult Center, 531A Vernon Street

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 2, Page 7

Medical Facilities

Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Sutter/Roseville Sunrise Care Center, 1600 Eureka Road and 1840 Sierra 600 Sunrise Avenue Gardens Drive Charter Behavioral Health, 101 Cirby Sutter Roseville Medical Center, 1 Hills Drive Medical Plaza Drive Roseville Convalescent Hospital, 1161 Adventist Health, 2100 Douglas Cirby Hills Drive Boulevard

Educational

Roseville High School, 601 Tahoe Woodcreek High School, 2551 Avenue Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard Adelante High School, 350 Atlantic Oakmont High School, 1710 Cirby Way Street Drive Sierra College, 333 Sunrise

Government

City Hall Complexes, 311 Vernon Street Placer County Fairgrounds, 800 All Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 222 Harding America City Boulevard Boulevard Post Offices, 2017 Opportunity Drive, HHS Adult System, 1130 Conroy Lane, and 8711 Auburn-Folsom Road #501 Social Security, 1695 Eureka Road Library - Main Street and 225 Taylor United Way, 105 Sutter Avenue Road Roseville Police Department, 1051 Placer County Courts, 300 Taylor Road Junction Boulevard

Retail and Entertainment

TJ Maxx Center, 1850 Douglas Lucky/Longs, 5060/5090 Foothills Boulevard Boulevard Target/Raley’s Center, 1925 Douglas Costco Complex, 6750 Stanford Ranch Boulevard Road Lucky/Mervyn’s Center, 1815 Douglas Century Theatres, 1555 Eureka Road. Boulevard Olympus Pointe Theater, 520 North Bel Air-Sunrise, 1039 Sunrise Avenue Sunrise Boulevard The Roseville Galleria, Roseville Roller King Skating, 889 Riverside Parkway and Harding Boulevard Avenue Bel Air - Foothills, 4008 Foothills Skatetown Ice Rink, 1009 Orlando Boulevard Avenue Denio’s, 1551 Vineyard Road Wal-Mart, new location in Roseville Albertson’s on Foothills, 5001 Foothills Boulevard

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 2, Page 8 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Parks

Buljan Park, 150 Hallisey Drive Kaseberg Park, 1151 Rand Way Cresthaven Park, 401 Community Drive Lincoln Estates Park, 331 James Drive Crestmont Park, 1500 Champion Oaks Mahany Park, 1545 Pleasant Grove Drive Boulevard Diamond Oaks Park, 400 Diamond Oaks Maidu Regional Park, 1550 Maidu Drive Boulevard Marco Dog Park, 1800 Sierra Gardens Eastwood Park, 1100 Madden Lane. Drive Feretti Park, 601 Circuit Drive Mark White Park, 504 6th Street Garbalino Park, 1015 Camelia Avenue Misty Wood Park, 1501 Misty Wood H.C. Elliot Park, 1421 Cushendall Drive Drive Hillsborough Park, 1001 Hillsborough Olympus Park, 2551 La Croix Drive Drive

EMPLOYMENT

Current and Projected Employment

Table 1 presents data from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) showing employment in the study Area for 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2020. In addition to the six cities located within Western Placer County, Table 1 includes combined data for the unincorporated parts of Western Placer County.

As presented in Table 1, approximately 114,812 persons were employed in Western Placer County in 2000. Total employment is expected to increase to 142,646 jobs in 2005, to 167,611 jobs in 2010 and to 211,468 jobs in 2020. This represents an average annual growth of 4.4 percent from 2000 to 2005, 3.3 percent from 2005 to 2010, and 2.4 percent from 2010 to 2020. The City of Lincoln is expected to experience the greatest annual growth (6.3 percent) from 2000 to 2020. The City of Roseville still remains the leader in employment, with nearly 60,390 jobs in 2000 and 109,231 expected in 2020.

Current and Projected Employment by Economic Sector

Data from SACOG showing Western Placer County employment by economic sector for 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2020 are presented in Table 2. In recent years employment classified as “other” (non-retail, non-office, etcetera) has been the largest sector in the study area (comprising 25.8 percent of the total in 2000), and is expected to remain the largest sector through 2005. However, by 2010 the retail sector is expected to become the largest employment sector (representing 24.3 percent of the total). Office employment comprises approximately 20 percent of the total. Medical, education, and manufacturing employment each comprise smaller sectors of total employment, as presented in the table. All sectors are expected to grow through 2020, with the greatest average annual growth in the retail sector. This sector is expected to grow 6.0 percent through 2005 and another 4.8 percent through 2010. From 2010 to 2020 the “office” employment is expected to have the largest growth rate of 3.7 percent.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 2, Page 9

2020 2000 to 2020 2010 to 2010 2005 to Percent Annual Growth 2005 2000 to Percent of Total Total Employment 2000 2005 2010 2020 2000 2005 2010 2020 1,060 1,194 1,338 1,724 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 2.4% 2.3% 2.6% 2.5% 2,342 2,741 3,294 4,289 2.0% 1.9% 2.0% 2.0% 3.2% 3.7% 2.7% 3.1% 8,745 11,235 13,969 20,104 7.6% 7.9% 8.3% 9.5% 5.1% 4.5% 3.7% 4.3% 4,612 7,693 9,802 15,726 4.0% 5.4% 5.8% 7.4% 10.8% 5.0% 4.8% 6.3% 10,365 11,222 12,143 13,988 9.0% 7.9% 7.2% 6.6% 1.6% 1.6% 1.4% 1.5% 60,390 76,331 89,255 109,231 52.6% 53.5% 53.3% 51.7% 4.8% 3.2% 2.0% 3.0% 114,812 142,646 167,611 211,468 100% 100% 100% 100% 4.4% 3.3% 2.4% 3.1% (1) TABLE 1: Western Placer County Employment by Location Loomis Rocklin Roseville Auburn Lincoln Unincorporated 27,298 32,230 37,810 46,406Total Study Area 23.8% 22.6% 22.6% 21.9% 3.4% 3.2% 2.1% 2.7% Location Colfax Note 1: Study Area includes Placer County west of the Sierra Nevada crest. Source: Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Projections.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 2, Page 10 Short Range Transit Plan Update

2020 2000 to 2020 2010 to 2010 2005 to Percent Annual Growth 2005 2000 to Percent of Total Sector y ment b y Emplo y Total Employment 2000 2005 2010 2020 2000 2005 2010 2020 9,500 12,038 13,435 15,951 8.3% 8.4% 8.0% 7.5% 4.8% 2.2% 3.5% 10.9% 23,837 30,317 36,480 52,460 20.8% 21.3% 21.8% 24.8% 4.9% 3.8% 7.5% 17.1% 29,669 34,873 38,835 46,351 25.8% 24.4% 23.2% 21.9% 3.3% 2.2% 3.6% 9.3% 24,083 32,284 40,773 52,718 21.0% 22.6% 24.3% 24.9% 6.0% 4.8% 5.3% 17.0% 114,812 142,646 167,611 211,468 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 4.4% 3.3% 4.8% 13.0% TABLE 2: Western Placer Count Sector Retail Office Medical Total Education 6,886Manufacturing 8,609 20,837 10,022 24,525Other 11,991 28,066 31,997 6.0% 18.1% 6.0% 17.2% 6.0% 16.7% 5.7% 15.1% 3.3% 4.6% 2.7% 3.1% 2.7% 3.7% 11.7% 9.0% Source: Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG)

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 2, Page 11

Existing and Projected Placer County Commute Patterns

An important consideration in transit planning is the quantity and pattern of commuting among residents and persons employed in Western Placer County. This is particularly important regarding the commuter services currently operated to work sites in downtown Sacramento, as well as potential future commuter routes. Data on commute patterns comes from two sources. The first presented is the US 2000 Census Transportation Package data, which shows employees commuting into and out of Placer County (see Table 3). As presented, there were an estimated 114,596 employees working in Placer County in 2000. Over 60 percent of these commuted within Placer County. Another 26 percent commuted from Sacramento County into Placer County. Employees commuting from El Dorado, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties (combined) to Placer County accounted for less than 8 percent of total commuters, and the remaining employees (nearly 7 percent) were from areas outside the region. Table 3 also shows where Placer County residents commuted for work. As presented, of the total 116,409 employees in Placer County, 59.7 percent worked within the county, and 30.5 percent commuted to Sacramento County. Just over 6 percent commuted out of the region, and the remaining 3.5 percent commuted to El Dorado, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties (combined).

SACOG has also developed commute pattern data. The SACMET transportation model provides data regarding home-to-work person-trips for four of the counties in the Sacramento Region (El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento and Yolo counties), based upon a system of Regional Analysis Districts (RADs). Neither Yuba nor Sutter Counties are included as part of the SACMET model. A total of twelve RADs are included in Western Placer County and are included in this analysis, as well as a category for trips “external to the Sacramento Region.” The SACMET data are presented in detail in Appendix A and summarized in Tables 4 and 5, and in Figures 4 and 5 below.

Home-Based Work Trips To Placer County

Table 4 shows the existing (2002) and projected (2005) modeled home-to-work trips between each of the various districts to Placer County. The change in daily home-based-work trips between these years is also summarized in Figure 4. A review of this data yield interesting insights into the commute patterns into Placer County.

There are an estimated 180,545 work trips made into Placer County. Of these, 63.5 percent are made from within Placer County (36.6 percent from within South Placer County; 16.6 percent from Auburn and East Placer County; and 10.3 percent from West Placer County).

A large number of trips (36,841, or 20.4 percent of total) are made from the Carmichael, Fair Oaks, Citrus Heights and Orangevale areas. In all, 36.5 percent of the trips come from outside of Placer County.

Only approximately 6 percent of Roseville/South Placer residents commute eastward along Interstate 80 to work locations in the other two sections in West Placer County. However, 22 percent of residents living in Lincoln and Auburn areas work in the Roseville area.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 2, Page 12 Short Range Transit Plan Update

0.2% 0.5% 0.7% 100% 273 565 872 From Placer County 7,190 6.2% 2,497 2.1% 116,409 0.7% 100% Employees Commuting To Placer County 856 1,487 1.3% 7,554 6.6% 1,694 1.5% 3,663 3.2% 69,554 60.7% 69,554 59.7% 29,788 26.0% 35,458 30.5% Number Percent Number Percent 114,596 TABLE 3: Employees Commuting To and From Placer County All Others Total Yolo Yuba Placer Sacramento Sutter County El Dorado Note: This analysis includes all of Placer County (not just western portion). Source: 2000 Census.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 2, Page 13

9.0% 3.2% 1.9% 3.8% 8.2% 3.0% 3.9% -4.3% -6.5% 15.4% 18.7% 34.3% 18.5% 15.7% 10.7% 13.2% HBW Trips: % Change In 2002 to 2005 53 18 30 18 177 312 (152) (335) 6,369 1,065 1,412 2,472 2,598 12,351 21,192 23,790 HBW Trips: # Change In 2002 to 2005 2.8% 1.7% 2.4% 1.1% 0.2% 5.4% 0.1% 0.8% 0.3% 2005 12.2% 18.7% 15.9% 33.5% 38.4% 66.5% 100% 3.1% 2.0% 2.9% 1.1% 0.2% 5.5% 0.1% 0.9% 0.3% 2002 10.3% 20.4% 16.6% 36.5% 36.6% 63.5% 100% of Placer County Employees % of All Daily HBW Person-Trips 391 218 617 2005 5,744 3,408 4,858 2,336 1,610 24,964 38,253 32,517 68,463 78,391 11,028 204,335 135,872 Total HBW 338 200 599 2002 5,567 3,560 5,193 2,024 9,963 1,580 18,595 36,841 30,045 65,865 66,040 180,545 114,680 Person-Trips, By Year evale Total g y Carmichael, Fair Oaks, Downtown Sacramento Other Central Sacramento Rancho Cordova Citrus Hts, Oran Folsom Other Sacramento Count South Placer West Placer Auburn/East Placer Subtotal: Placer County Yolo County Sutter County El Dorado County External to Sac Region Subtotal: External to Placer County 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 TABLE 4: Summary of Home-Based Work Person-Trips to Employment in Placer County From District Source: SACOG SACMET Model of Placer, Sacramento, El Dorado and Yolo Counties.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 2, Page 14 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Total 14.3% 24,703 100.0% 100.0% 172,978 197,681 y 6.0% 3,511 33.7% 31.3% Placer 58,298 61,809 Count Subtotal: External to ion g 13 564 9.3% 3.5% 3.3% 6,048 6,612 to Sac Re External y 12 (71) 0.7% 0.6% 1,294 1,223 -5.5% Count El Dorado y 11 39 198 237 0.1% 0.1% Sutter 19.7% Count y 10 212 Yolo 1.5% 1.4% 8.1% 2,631 2,843 Count y 66.3% 68.7% 18.5% Placer Within 21,192 Count 114,680 135,872 Subtotal: 9 East 8.8% 2,654 Placer 17.3% 16.5% 29,998 32,652 Auburn/ 8 6.1% 7.1% West 3,572 Placer 33.8% 10,561 14,133 7 To District South Placer 20.2% 42.8% 45.1% 74,121 89,087 14,966 y 6 306 0.9% 1.0% Other 1,611 1,917 19.0% mento Sacra- Count 5 111 3.0% 2.1% 1.9% 3,716 3,827 Folsom evale 4 g 8.3% 8.8% 8.3% 1,259 15,140 16,399 Fair Oaks, Citrus Hts, Oran Carmichael, 3 169 2.2% 4.4% 4.0% 7,647 7,816 Rancho Cordova 2 967 6.8% 8.2% 7.7% Other mento Sacra- 14,199 15,166 Central 1 (45) 3.4% 2.9% 5,814 5,769 -0.8% mento Sacra- Downtown 2002 2005 2002 2005 TABLE 5: Summary of Total Placer County Resident Home-Based Work Person-Trips Total Daily HBW Person-Trips of Placer County Residents % of All Daily HBW Person-Trips Placer County Residents # Change in Commuters: 2002 to 2005 % Change in Commuters: 2002 to 2005 Source: SACOG SACMET Model of Placer, Sacramento, El Dorado and Yolo Counties.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 2, Page 15

100 80 2005 60 Thousands 2002 40 Daily HBW Trips 20 0 Folsom West Placer Yolo County South Placer Sutter County Downtown Sac El Dorado Hills FIGURE 4: 2002-05 Change in Daily Commute Trips to Placer County Jobs Rancho Cordova Other Sac County Other Central Sac Auburn/ East Placer

External to Sac Region

Carmichael - Citrus Hts Employee Residence Employee

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 2, Page 16 Short Range Transit Plan Update

60% 40% Percent of Total 20% Placer Resident's Employment Zone 0% Folsom Yolo County West Placer South Placer Sutter County El Dorado Hills Rancho Cordova Auburn/East Placer FIGURE 5: Western Placer County Commute Pattern in 2005 External to Sac Region Downtown Sacramento Placer Employee's Residence Zone Other Sacramento County Other Central Sacramento Carmichael, Fair Oaks, Citrus Hts, Orangevale

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 2, Page 17

The number of work trips coming from West Placer County is expected to increase 34.3 percent, from 18,595 trips in 2002 to 24,964 trips in 2005. In addition, South Placer trips are expected to increase 18.7 percent, or from 66,040 trips in 2002 to 78,391 trips in 2005.

Trips from Folsom into Placer County are actually expected to change from 3,560 to 3,408 between 2002 and 2005, a 4.3 percent decrease. El Dorado commuters will also drop from 5,193 to 4,858, a 6.5 percent decrease.

Home-Based Work Trips From Placer County

Table 5 presents the home-based work trips from Placer County to the various districts analyzed in the model. A review of the data indicates the following:

Similar to percentages of commutes into Placer County, 66.3 percent of work trips from Placer County residents stay within the county (114,680). However, almost 43 percent are from South Placer County (as opposed to 36.6 percent who commute to South Placer.)

Over 11 percent commute from Downtown Sacramento or other central Sacramento areas. However, the number from Downtown Sacramento is projected to decrease by 1 percent from 2002 to 2005, while trips from other portions of central Sacramento increase by 7 percent.

About half the number that commute into the Carmichael, Fair Oaks, Citrus Heights and Orangevale areas commute from Placer County to these locations (38,841 commute into Placer County and 15,140 commute from Placer County). However, the number of employees expected to commute from these locations in 2005 increases from 15,140 to 16,399: an 8 percent increase.

The biggest percentage increase in commuters is expected from West Placer County. The 2002 estimated number of commuters is 10,561, which is expected to reach 14,133 by 2005, a 34 percent increase.

In terms of sheer numbers, the biggest anticipated increase is from South Placer County, where an estimated 74,121 employees currently commute within Placer County, expected to increase to 89,087 by 2005.

El Dorado County is expecting a decrease in the number of commuters from Placer County. Currently at 1,294, by 2005 it is expected that 1,223 employees will be commuting to El Dorado County.

Western Placer County Commute Pattern in 2005

In summary, Figure 5 presents the percentage of commuters by where they are projected to live and work in 2005. As indicated, the greatest percentage of employees will live and reside in South Placer County. After South Placer County, a nearly equal percentage of Placer County employees reside in Auburn and East Placer as one location, and Carmichael, Fair Oaks, Citrus Heights and Orangevale as another. However, the number of employees in Auburn and East

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 2, Page 18 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Placer County is almost twice the number of Placer County residents employed Carmichael, Fair Oaks, Citrus Heights and Orangevale.

Major Employers

Table 6 lists the number of employees of major Placer County employers in 2002, according to the County of Placer Office of Economic Development. As the table shows, 10 out of the 19 Western Placer County’s major employers are located in Roseville. The remaining nine major employers are located in Auburn, Lincoln or Rocklin.

Table 6: Western Placer County 2002 Major Employers

Employer Employees

Auburn Placer County 3,000 Sutter Auburn Faith Hospital 750 Coherent Auburn Group 600

Lincoln Solectron 650 Sierra Pacific Industries 300 Western Placer Unified School District 410

Rocklin Sierra College 1,200 Oracle Corp. 200 City of Rocklin 190

Roseville Hewlett- Packard 6,300 Pride Industries 2,200 Kaiser Medical Center & Offices 2,000 Sutter Roseville Medical Center 1,460 Union Pacific 1,300 NEC Electronics USA Inc. 700 Roseville City School District 700 Earthlink 540 Nordstrom's 450 City of Roseville 100

Source: Placer County Office of Economic Development.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 2, Page 19

POPULATION AND HOUSING

Current and Projected Population

SACOG population data for Western Placer County for 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2020 are presented in Table 7. It should be noted that SACOG’s year 2000 total population data for Western Placer County is 0.38 percent higher than the 2000 Census data due to subtle variations in the manner in which data is collected. As can be seen in the table, the population of Western Placer County was 237,145 in 2000, and is forecast to increase to approximately 292,640 in 2005, 336,805 in 2010 and to nearly 396,800 in 2020. The average annual growth rate is expected to be 4.3 percent from 2000 to 2005, 2.9 percent from 2005 to 2010, and 1.7 percent from 2010 to 2020. The City of Lincoln is expected to show the largest annual growth rate during all the time periods in this study, with a rate of 15.1 percent from 2000 to 2005, 8.0 percent from 2005 to 2010, and 4.0 percent from 2010 to 2020. In 2010, the City of Roseville will continue to have the largest population in the study area, with 109,160 persons (representing 32.4 percent of the total population of the area). However, the unincorporated portions of Western Placer County (as a whole) have the largest population (114,040 residents, representing 33.9 percent of the total population). The expected growth in population by location from 2000 to 2020 is illustrated in Figure 6.

Current and Projected Housing

The total number of housing units in Western Placer County is presented in Table 8. The number of housing units is forecast to grow from approximately 98,730 units in 2000 to 123,587 in 2005, 142,505 units in 2010, and 167,106 in 2020. This increase represents an average annual growth rate of 4.6 percent from 2000 to 2005, 2.9 percent from 2005 to 2010, and 1.6 percent from 2010 to 2020. In line with population projections, the City of Lincoln is expected to experience the largest increase in the number of housing units, with a growth of 16.5 percent from 2000 to 2005, 7.2 percent from 2005 to 2010, and 3.5 percent from 2010 to 2020. By 2010, the largest number of housing units is anticipated in the City of Roseville (47,188) and in the unincorporated portions of Placer County (49,853).

Transit-Dependent Population

Nationwide, transit system ridership is drawn largely from various groups of persons who make up what is often called the “transit dependent” population. This category includes elderly persons, youth, persons with disabilities, low income persons, and those without ready access to a private vehicle. There is considerable overlap among these groups. For this study, these groups were defined as follows:

Elderly persons. This study defines persons aged 60 and over as elderly. Persons aged 75 and over, the potentially “frail elderly,” are another important transit market.

Youth. For the purposes of this study, persons under age 18 are defined as youth.

Persons with disabilities. “Mobility limited” persons were utilized for this study. “Mobility limited” persons are defined by the Census as having a health condition lasting more than six

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 2, Page 20 Short Range Transit Plan Update to 2020 % Annual Growth 2000 to 2020 % Annual Growth 2010 2020 to 2010 % Annual Growth 2005 2010 Projected Population by Year to 2005 % Annual Growth 2000 2005 (1) 1,610 1,8206,075 2.5% 6,770 2,065 2.2% 2.6% 2,670 8,400 2.6% 4.4% 2.6% 9,830 1.6% 2.4% 11,920 13,000 1.7%12,900 14,090 26,060 1.6% 15.1%37,670 16,240 38,350 44,10079,560 1.4% 8.0% 100,000 3.2%87,410 1.6% 56,575 4.7% 50,700 100,890 4.0% 109,160 2.9% 2.8% 7.7% 64,870 1.8% 114,040 2.5% 109,360 2.5% 0.0% 2.8% 137,240 1.6% 1.9% 2.3% 2000 Total for Western Placer County 237,145 292,640 4.3% 336,805 2.9% 396,785 1.7% 2.6% TABLE 7: Western Placer County Population by Location Location Colfax Lincoln Loomis Rocklin Roseville Unincorporated Placer County Auburn Note 1: 2000 Census data shows a 0.38% difference from SACOG population numbers. Source: Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Projections by jurisdiction.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 2, Page 21

13,150 12,290 9,160 6,600 Population Growth 3,000 6,000 9,000 12,000 15,000 1,630 by Location, 2005 to 2010 1,090 245 0 Colfax Lincoln Loomis Rocklin Auburn Roseville FIGURE 6: Western Placer County Population Growth County Unincorporated Placer

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 2, Page 22 Short Range Transit Plan Update

to 2020 % Annual Growth 2000 to 2020 % Annual Growth 2010 2020 to 2010 % Annual Growth 2005 Housing Units 2010 to 2005 % Annual Growth 2000 736 831 2.5% 940 2.5% 1,211 2.6% 2.5% 2000 2005 5,486 5,989 1.8% 6,4932,240 1.6% 2,502 7,496 2.2% 1.4% 3,109 1.6% 4.4% 3,654 1.6% 2.5% 5,287 11,362 16.5% 16,071 7.2% 22,724 3.5% 7.6% 98,730 123,587 4.6% 142,505 2.9% 167,106 1.6% 2.7% 13,972 16,345 3.2% 18,851 2.9% 24,598 2.7% 2.9% 33,096 42,695 5.2% 47,188 2.0% 47,281 0.0% 1.8% 37,913 43,863 3.0% 49,853 2.6% 60,142 1.9% 2.3% TABLE 8: Western Placer County Housing Units by Location Location Colfax Lincoln Loomis Rocklin Unincorporated Study Area Total Auburn Roseville Source: Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG).

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 2, Page 23

months that makes it difficult to go outside alone. Nationwide, the percent of persons who were reported as having a mobility-limitation in 2000 was approximately 17.7 percent.

Low income persons. Persons classified by the Census as “below poverty status” were considered to be low income for this study.

Persons lacking access to a private vehicle. Members of households with no vehicles available and those with only one vehicle available were analyzed for this study.

Data showing transit dependent populations in the study area come from two sources: SACOG and the US 2000 Census. Because SACOG is the local regional planning agency, their data are preferred and used (where possible) for this analysis. As mentioned above, the SACOG data is approximately 0.38 percent higher than Census data. This has an exponential affect on projections: therefore, adjustments in the data were performed, as described in Appendix B, with summary data provided in Table 9. As Table 9 shows, the annual growth in population of each of the transit dependent groups is expected to increase through 2010.

Western Placer County 2000 Census block group boundaries are illustrated in Figure 7. The 2000 data (as presented in Appendix Table B-1) were utilized to develop Figures 8 through 11, illustrating estimated transit-dependent populations by block group in 2000.

Figure 8 shows the concentration of persons aged 60 and over. As presented in the figure and Appendix B (Table B-1), the greatest number of elderly persons reside in the census tract block group 210.062 (3,007 elderly persons), followed by block group 210.601 (1,728), block group 207.023 (1,073), block group 211.041 (1,021) and block group 218.022 (911).

Figure 9 presents the concentration of mobility-limited persons in the study area. As shown it the figure and Appendix B (Table B-1), the greatest number of mobility-limited persons reside in census tract block group 214.023 (329 mobility-limited persons), followed by block group 209.012 (171), block group 211.051 (160), block groups 210.051 and 210.072 (tied with 136) and block group 210.082 (135).

The concentration of low-income persons is presented in Figure 10. As presented, the greatest concentration is located in census tract block group 214.023 (885 persons below the poverty level), followed by block group 209.012 (494), block group 209.024 (392), block group 211.051 (328) and block group 207.051 (310).

The concentration of zero-vehicle households is presented in Figure 11. As presented, the greatest number of zero-vehicle households is located in census tract block group 203.1 (288 zero-vehicle households), followed by block group 207.021 (227), block group 208.1 (213), block group 207.023 (179) and block group 207.053 (145).

It is important to consider that Figures 8 through 11 illustrate only potential trip origins. The destinations of many of the trips made by these persons may be much more concentrated, focusing on such locations as major shopping centers and medical facilities. The major activity center maps (Figures 2 and 3 above) show the most important likely trip destinations.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 2, Page 24 Short Range Transit Plan Update

2005 to Growth % Annual 2010 to 2005 % Annual Growth 2000 2005 (1)

5,361 6,576 4.2% 7,534 2.8% 4,363 5,221 3.7% 5,897 2.5% 11,783 13,936 3.4% 15,691 2.4% 41,418 50,594 4.1% 57,578 2.6% 88,550 110,893 4.6% 126,779 2.7% 2000 236,241 288,524 4.1% 329,474 2.7% (3) (2) TABLE 9: Western Placer County Summary Demographic Data Total Population Mobility Limited Persons Number of Households Elderly Persons (Aged 60 and Over) Study Area Totals Persons Below Poverty Status Zero-Vehicles Per Household Note 1: Census 2000 data shows a 0.38% difference from SACOG population numbers. Note 2: Mobility-limited figures include persons aged 16 to 64. Note 3: Poverty status figures include persons aged 0 to 64. Source: 2000 Census and SACOG projections.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 2, Page 25

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 2, Page 26 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 2, Page 27

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 2, Page 28 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 2, Page 29

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 2, Page 30 Short Range Transit Plan Update FIGURE 10

Population Below Poverty Level by Census Block Group in 2000

LEGEND 0 TO 29 PERSONS BELOW POVERTY LEVEL 30 TO 71 PERSONS BELOW POVERTY LEVEL 72 TO 123 PERSONS BELOW POVERTY LEVEL 124 AND GREATER PERSONS BELOW POVERTY LEVEL HIGHWAYS LAKES BLOCK GROUP BOUNDARY 174

49 65

04 8

SCALE IN MILES

poor

TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 2, Page 31

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 2, Page 32 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Chapter 3 Transportation Services

OVERVIEW OF WESTERN PLACER COUNTY TRANSIT OPERATORS

As discussed in Chapter 2, this study comprises Short Range Transit Plans for five transit operators in Western Placer County (the portion of Placer County west of the Sierra Nevada crest). The five transit operators are:

Placer County Transit (PCT), Auburn Transit, Lincoln Transit, Roseville Transit, and Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA).

The services provided by each agency are summarized below. The operations of each provider are discussed in detail in the following sections of this chapter. Other transit providers in the study area are briefly described at the end of this chapter as well.

Types of Service Provided

PCT, operated by the County of Placer Department of Public Works, provides three fixed-route services. In addition, PCT contracts with CTSA to provide two deviated fixed-route services and general public Dial-A-Ride services in Loomis, Rocklin, Granite Bay and along Highway 49. (A sixth service, the North Auburn Loop, is an extension of the Highway 49 service.) Hours of operation vary, with routes beginning service as early as 5:00 A.M. and ending service as late as 9:00 P.M. Saturday service is available for all routes (except the Colfax/Alta route) from as early as 8:00 A.M. to as late as 5:00 P.M. Reservations are required for deviations on the Taylor Road and for Alta/Colfax services. Hours operated vary by area. Saturday service is available on the Auburn-Light Rail, Highway 49 and Lincoln/Rocklin/Sierra College fixed-route services, as well as the complementary paratransit services along these fixed-route services.

Auburn Transit is operated by the City of Auburn Public Works Department. The service operates two deviated fixed-routes throughout the City and into the unincorporated county on weekdays, and one route operates on Saturdays and Sundays.

The City of Lincoln Public Works Department operates Lincoln Transit service. Three deviated fixed-routes and Dial-A-Ride services are operated weekdays; no service is available on weekends. Lincoln Transit service is utilized primarily by school children living within the City limits, who ride the bus from home to school in the morning and back in the afternoon. Nonetheless, all Lincoln Transit services are open to the general public.

Roseville Transit, administered by the City of Roseville, comprises three modes: nine fixed- routes, operated throughout the City; Roseville Dial-A-Ride, a city-wide demand-response service open to the general public; and weekday peak-hour commuter service to downtown

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 1

Sacramento. All services operate weekdays. The fixed-route operates Saturdays, and the Dial- A-Ride operates Saturdays and Sundays.

CTSA, a division of PRIDE Industries, receives state Transportation Development Act Article 4.5 funding to operate community transit services (i.e., services linking intra-community origins and destinations) for persons who cannot use conventional transit services. CTSA operates service under contract with various social service agencies. The agency also provides trips at the request of individuals, for a fare dependent on the origin and destination of the trip. In addition, CTSA operates complementary paratransit service for the Highway 49 Shuttle under contract with PCT and scheduled service to Foresthill. Finally, CTSA operates Dial-A-Ride services in Rocklin, Loomis, and Granite Bay – all under contract to PCT.

Comparison of Current Fare Structures and Media

In presenting an overview of the various transit operators, it is useful to compare the fares charged by the operators and the fare media the systems make available to their riders. Table 10 presents the fares charged by PCT, Auburn Transit, Lincoln Transit and Roseville Transit. The table also includes information on the deviated fixed-route service provided by CTSA between Auburn and Foresthill, and on the Highway 49 demand-response service that CTSA operates under contract with PCT. The other services provided by CTSA are not included in the table, because the fares charged vary considerably based on the distance between the trip origin and destination.

As is typical in the transit industry, the fare charged elderly persons and persons with disabilities is generally lower than that charged the general public. In addition, Auburn Transit and Roseville Transit have a lower fare for students under age 18. Table 10 also shows daily or monthly passes that are available at the agencies, and the price of the passes. PCT, Auburn Transit and Roseville Transit each provide a daily pass. Auburn Transit, Lincoln Transit and Roseville Transit provide monthly passes.

Table 11 presents an analysis of the various multi-ride tickets sold by the four operators. A wide variety of multi-ride tickets are available at the different systems, and the savings per ride over the single-fare price vary considerably. The wide variety of multi-ride tickets available, and the range of cost savings realized, is potentially confusing for passengers.

Transportation Development Act Funding

A mainstay of funding for transit programs in California is provided by the Transportation Development Act (TDA). The TDA provides two major sources of funding for public transportation:

The Local Transportation Fund (LTF), which has been in existence since 1972. The State Transit Assistance (STA) fund, which has existed since 1980.

Local Transportation Fund

The major portion of TDA funds are provided through the LTF. These funds are generated by a 3 cent statewide sales tax, returned to the county of origin. The county then allocates the funds

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 2 Short Range Transit Plan Update

(2) ------Free $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 Auburn- CTSA Foresthill -- -- Free $3.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $90.00 $125.00 Commuter Sacramento ------Free $3.75 $3.75 $1.75 Dial-A-Ride Roseville Transit (6) -- -- Free $3.40 $1.70 $0.65 $1.30 $0.65 $50.00 trip origin and destination. Fixed-Route ------Free $0.75 $0.75 $0.50 $15.00 Fixed-Route Lincoln Transit ------Free $2.00 $0.60 $0.80 $0.60 $18.00 Fixed-Route Auburn Transit Multi-Ride Ticket Information Presented in Table 11 (1) ------Free $1.50 $1.50 $0.60 Dial-A-Ride ------Free Placer County Transit $0.75 $2.00 $0.75 $1.50 $0.60 Fixed-Route (5) (5) (3) (4) Child Revised May 10, 2004 Non-Resident General Public Disabled/Senior General Public Non-Resident General Public Disabled/Senior Student TABLE 10: Western Placer County Transit Operators Fare Comparison Fare Media Daily Pass Monthly Pass Single Fare Note 1: ADA complementary paratransit for Highway 49 Shuttle only; operated by CTSA. Note 2: Other CTSA transit services not included because the fares charged vary considerably based on distance between Note 3: Under age 18. Note 4: Under age 5 at Placer County Transit, Auburn Roseville and CTSA; under 3 Lincoln Transit. Note 5: Persons who live neither in Roseville nor unincorporated Placer County. Note 6: A combined Fixed Route and Commuter Monthly Pass is available for $120 General Public, $105 Senior & Disabled.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 3

------$3.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 per Ride ------Total Sac. Commuter $70.00 $50.00 (2) ------$3.00 $1.50 $3.00 $3.00 $3.75 $1.50 $1.50 $1.75 per Ride Dial-A-Ride ------Total $30.00 $15.00 Roseville Transit ------$1.30 $0.65 per Ride Fixed-Route ------Total ------$0.68 $0.75 $0.75 $0.68 $0.75 $0.50 $0.68 $0.68 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 per Ride ------Total Lincoln Transit $27.00 $27.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 ------$0.50 $0.56 $0.80 $0.60 $0.56 $0.50 per Ride ------Total Auburn Transit $5.00 $15.00 (1) ------$1.35 $1.35 $1.50 $0.55 $0.55 $0.60 $0.55 $1.35 per Ride ------Dial-A-Ride Total $11.00 $27.00 ------$0.63 $0.75 $0.75 $0.50 $0.60 $0.60 $0.55 $0.68 $0.75 $0.63 $0.50 $0.60 per Ride Placer County Transit Fixed-Route ------Total $7.50 $6.00 $11.00 $13.50 $25.00 $20.00 General Public General Public Minimum Maximum Cost of Single Fare Minimum Maximum Cost of Single Fare General Public Disabled/Senior General Public Disabled/Senior TABLE 11: Western Placer County Transit Operators Multi-Ride Ticket Comparison 10-Ride Ticket Multi-Ride Ticket 9-Ride Ticket General Public Disabled/Senior 40-Ride Ticket 30-Ride Ticket 20-Ride Ticket Note 1: ADA complementary paratransit for Highway 49 Shuttle only; operated by CTSA. Note 2: Roseville Dial-A-Ride service does not offer multi-ride tickets. Note 3: Persons who live neither in Roseville nor unincorporated Placer County.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 4 Short Range Transit Plan Update

to the jurisdictions within the county. The returned funds must be spent for the following purposes:

Two percent may be provided for bicycle facilities.

The remaining funds must be spent for transit and paratransit purposes, unless a finding is made by the Transportation Commission 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.

State Transit Assistance

STA funds must be used for transportation planning and public transportation purposes. Funds for the program are derived from statewide sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuel, and are allocated as part of the state budget process. Statewide, STA funds have varied dramatically over recent years. Several years ago, funds were very low, due to the state’s budget problems. In recent years, however, STA funding has returned to relatively high levels.

Placer County Estimated FY 2001-02 TDA Funding

Figure 12 illustrates the allocation of Placer County TDA funds in Fiscal Year 2001-02. The County received $12,950,542 in LTF funds and $565,304 in STA funds, and carryover funds totaled $432,164 (LTF and STA combined). A total of $569,560 in TDA funds (LTF and STA combined) was apportioned to Placer County for the Tahoe Area Regional Transit service. As shown in the figure, $13,378,450 remained available for allocation to Placer County and to the other jurisdictions within Western Placer County. Of that, approximately $5,070,030 was utilized for street and road purposes and $5,941,308 was used for transit. In addition, the $703,327 allocated directly to CTSA was used to provide transit services. Thus, a total of $6,644,635 in TDA funding was utilized for transit purposes in Western Placer County in Fiscal Year 2001-02.

PLACER COUNTY TRANSIT

PCT service was initiated in 1974. The system is operated by the Placer County Department of Public Works, and transit operations are directly responsible to the Deputy Director. PCT provides regular and deviated fixed-route service, as well as Dial-A-Ride service, and operates a commuter vanpool program. Service is provided to various areas of the County, including each of the County’s incorporated communities (Auburn, Colfax, Lincoln, Loomis, Rocklin, and Roseville), and several unincorporated communities as well (e.g., Alta, Penryn, Granite Bay).

PCT Fixed-Route Service

PCT currently operates fixed-route services stretching between Alta and the Light Rail station at Watt Avenue and I-80 in Sacramento, and fixed-route services in Auburn and Lincoln. PCT currently operates five fixed-route services, as shown in Figure 13 and described below. Figure 13 also illustrates other regional transit connections, including Gold Country Stage (which

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 5

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 6 Short Range Transit Plan Update

FIGURE 12: Estimated Transportation Development Act Funding for Western Placer County, FY 2001-02

Total Placer County Total Placer County LTF Income STA Income $12,950,542 $565,304

STA Carryover & 99314 LTF To TRPA LTF Carryover STA To TRPA Funds $547,018 $265,382 $22,542 $166,782

LTF Available for STA Available for PCTPA Apportionment PCTPA Apportionment $12,668,906 $709,544

Administrative/ LTF Available To STA Available To LTF to CTSA (5%) STA to CTSA (5%) PCTPA Discretionary (1) Planning/Ped/Bike Jurisdictions Jurisdictions $770,149 $11,237,069 $661,688 $41,639 $574,197 $93,708

Placer County Auburn Colfax Lincoln Loomis Rocklin Roseville

LTF $4,371,396 LTF $564,439 LTF $64,659 LTF $672,532 LTF $307,756 LTF $1,890,578 LTF $2,520,165 STA $246,366 STA $27,639 STA $3,192 STA $29,767 STA $13,034 STA $80,068 STA $187,747 Total TDA $4,617,762 Total TDA $592,078 Total TDA $67,851 Total TDA $702,299 Total TDA $320,790 Total TDA $1,970,646 Total TDA $2,707,912

PCT $2,505,762 Auburn Transit $261,275 PCT $9,501 Lincoln Transit $279,533 PCT $21,812 PCT $235,367 Roseville Transit $2,516,058 (6) TART (2) $70,000 Roads $330,803 Roads $58,350 Roads $422,766 Roads $298,978 Roads $1,735,279 Roads $191,854 (3) Roseville $10,000 (4) Foothill $10,000 (5) CTSA $22,000 Roads $2,032,000

Placer County Transit (8) Auburn Transit Lincoln Transit Roseville Transit (8) CTSA

Total TDA $2,772,442 Total TDA $261,275 Total TDA $279,533 Total TDA $2,526,058 Total TDA (7) $725,327

Note 1: Requires approval by board. STA discretionary is used for transit capital and operations projects as recommended by the Transit Operators Working Group. Note 2: For service provided by Tahoe Area Regional Transit (TART) outside of Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) area. Note 3: For commuter service provided by Roseville Transit to county residents. Note 4: For Foothill Volunteer Center service in Placer County. Note 5: Voucher Program funding is set aside by PCTPA from STA Discretionary funds. Note 6: Roseville TDA road funding is for transit-related road improvements. Note 7: CTSA total does not include Highway 49 Dial-A-Ride service or Foresthills service provided by CTSA under contract with Placer County. Note 8: Roseville and Placer County claim large sums for capital, which is not shown in this chart.

Source: PCTPA.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 7

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 8 Short Range Transit Plan Update operates a route from Grass Valley/Nevada City to Auburn), Yuba-Sutter Transit (which operates a commuter service from Marysville/Yuba City to the Lincoln industrial park), Sacramento Regional Transit (which has a connection point with both PCT and Roseville Transit at Auburn Boulevard and Whyte Avenue), and Folsom Stage (the Granite Bay Dial-A-Ride service can connect with Folsom Transit on request).

The area served by these routes is extensive. Transfer points have been established at the Sierra Gardens Transfer Point in Roseville, Elder’s Transfer Center in Auburn, Sierra College in Rocklin, and Louis Lane/Orlando.

Following are brief descriptions of each PCT route, including times of service:

The Auburn to Light Rail service operates 15 runs in each direction every weekday. Service to Light Rail operates hourly with the first run departing at 5:00 A.M. and the last run departing at 7:00 P.M. Return service operates on the hour starting at 7:00 A.M. until 8:00 P.M. while the first run which leaves at 6:10 A.M. to accommodate Light Rail transfers. Two buses are used to operate this service. Major stops include Elder’s Transfer Station, Sierra College, Roseville Galleria, the Louis Lane & Orlando Transfer Station and Light Rail. Saturday service operates on two hour headways from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. from Auburn and from 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. from Light Rail.

Three buses run a continuous route between Lincoln, Rocklin and Sierra College. A total of 14 runs are operated in both directions hourly from 6:00 A.M. until 7:00 P.M. Transfers are available at the Roseville Galleria. Major stops include Menlo Drive and Atherton Road in Lincoln; Rocklin BelAir; Costco; Wal-Mart; Lynroc; the Roseville Galleria; and Sierra College. Transfers are available at the Galleria. Saturday service operates on two hour headways from 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. from Lincoln and from 10:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. from Sierra College.

The Highway 49 Shuttle operates 15 southbound runs and 13 northbound runs every weekday between Chana High School and the Elder’s Transfer Center, utilizing two buses. The first two southbound runs (4:40 A.M. and 5:40 A.M.) connect with the Auburn-to-Light Rail route, and are therefore not matched with northbound routes. This route does not provide deviated service, but complementary Dial-A-Ride service for this area is provided by CTSA under contract to PCT. After the initial two runs, the southbound service leaves Chana High School hourly at ten after the hour from 6:10 A.M. to 6:10 P.M. Northbound service leaves the Elder’s Transfer Center every hour on the hour from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., with drop off service continuing until 9:00 P.M. from transfers. Major stops along SR 49 include the Rock Creek Mobile Home Park, the DeWitt Center, Albertson’s, Bel Air, Luther Road, Valley Oaks and the Nevada Street Post Office. An extension of this route is called the North Auburn Loop. Southbound Saturday service operates on two hour headways between 10:10 A.M. and 4:10 P.M., with a first run leaving at 8:30 A.M. Northbound runs operate on two hour headways starting at 11:00 A.M. with the last run leaving at 5:00 P.M.

The Taylor Road Shuttle provides deviated fixed-route service between the Elder’s Transit Center in Auburn and Sierra College along Taylor Road. Connections to the Auburn/Light Rail service are available at Sierra College. This shuttle will deviate up to 3/4 of one mile from Taylor Road by reservation only, with pick-up times to be coordinated with the timed

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 9

stops. Stops on Ophir Road between Auburn and Ophir Road Park & Ride lot are by reservation only. Seven round trips are operated leaving every two hours from 6:35 A.M. to 6:35 P.M. westbound and from 7:45 A.M. to 7:45 P.M. eastbound. Westbound Saturday service operates from 8:35 A.M. to 4:35 P.M. and 9:45 A.M. to 3:45 P.M. in the eastbound direction, with the last eastbound route leaving at 5:15 P.M. instead of 5:45 P.M.

The Colfax/Alta Shuttle offers two round-trips per day between the Elder’s Transfer Center in Auburn and the Alta Store in Alta. This is essentially a checkpoint service, with guaranteed stops only at the Elder’s Transfer Center, Colfax, and Alta. The scheduled eastbound service leaves the Elder’s Transfer Center at 7:00 A.M. and 3:15 P.M.; westbound service from the Alta store is scheduled at 8:00 A.M. and 4:15 P.M. Stops will be made at the following locations only when advanced reservations have been made: Bowman, Christian Valley, Meadow Vista Post Office, Applegate, Weimar, Gold Run, and Dutch Flat. The Colfax/Alta Shuttle travels mainly along Interstate 80. This route does not operate on Saturdays.

PCT Transfers

Transfers are available free of charge between PCT routes and Auburn Transit, Roseville Transit, and Nevada County Gold Country Stage. PCT does not have a transfer agreement with Sacramento RT, and passengers transferring onto that system are charged the regular Sacramento RT fare and vice versa.

PCT Ridership

Annual Ridership

In Fiscal Year 2001-02, PCT provided 194,708 one-way passenger-trips on the fixed-route service, a 20.2 percent increase over the previous year. PCT also provided 18,795 one-way passenger-trips on the Highway 49 Dial-A-Ride service and 20,022 one-way passenger-trips through a contract with the Alta Regional Center. PCT provided 227,982 passenger-trips in Fiscal Year 2002-03, which is a 17 percent increase over trips provided in Fiscal Year 2001-02.

Monthly Ridership

Table 12 presents monthly ridership by route for Fiscal Year 2001-02. Total monthly fixed-route ridership ranged from a high of 19,402 in April 2002, to a low of 13,087 in December 2001. Ridership by route is also shown in Table 12, with Express route carrying 40.6 percent of the weekday fixed-route ridership, and 45.6 percent of Saturday fixed-route ridership. This is followed closely by the Highway 49 service which accounts for 37.9 percent of weekday fixed- route ridership and 40.2 percent of Saturday fixed-route ridership. Systemwide, 83.4 percent of the ridership is on the fixed-route service, 8.0 percent on the Highway 49 Dial-A-Ride, and 8.6 percent on the Alta Regional service.

Average Weekday Fixed-Route Boardings by Hour

Table 13 presents the average boardings by route and by hour for PCT fixed-routes. Boardings do not vary significantly throughout the day. The greatest number of boardings occurs early in

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 10 Short Range Transit Plan Update

87.6% 92.1% 98.8% 82.6% 99.1% 95.1% Monthly 100.0% 111.0% 101.2% 109.4% 116.7% 106.5% Average Percent of 17,048 19,458 17,922 19,230 21,592 16,073 19,281 19,691 18,500 21,290 22,706 20,734 Ridership Total PCT Alta Regional (1) Other Services 1,625 1,789 1,649 1,915 1,380 1,566 1,664 1,656 1,445 1,962 1,562 1,424 1,697 1,681 1,375 1,515 1,562 1,432 1,715 1,666 1,594 1,710 1,527 1,706 18,795 20,022 233,525 A-Ride Hwy 49 Dial-

13,634 15,894 14,976 15,910 18,185 13,087 15,903 16,801 15,506 17,909 19,402 17,501 194,708 Subtotal Fixed-Route 487 617 594 670 745 735 713 Subtotal Saturday 47 71 82 85 99 99 98 College Lincoln/S. Saturday 232 208 281 265 308 318 122 748 275289 208 223 107 590 379 322 123 824 330 255 352 360 128 840 338 308 337 299 349 266 413 386 145 944 3,883 3,418 1,206 8,507 Express Hwy 49 PCT Fixed-Routes 13,147 15,277 14,228 17,595 15,316 12,263 15,233 14,666 16,056 17,174 18,689 16,557 186,201 Subtotal Weekday Alta Colfax/ College Weekday Lincoln/S. 49 Highway 7,008 5,998 3,392 776 5,705 5,391 2,944 626 7,913 6,581 3,373 822 Express Total 75,527 70,291 32,806 7,577 TABLE 12: PCT Ridership By Route by Month, FY 2001-02 July, 01 4,857 5,880 1,993 417 August 6,058 6,351 2,352 516 September 6,013 5,427 2,288 500 October 7,426November 6,440 6,433 5,687 3,058 2,691 671 505 December 4,807 4,726 2,207 523 January, 02 5,897 6,041 2,550 745 February 6,645 5,854 2,849 708 March 6,765 5,915 3,109 768 June May April Note 1: The Highway 49 Dial-A-Ride service is provided under contract by CTSA. Source: County of Placer Public Works Department, May 2003.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 11

Total 0.9% 3.5% 9.3% 16.0% 17.7% 12.0% 19.8% 20.8% of PCT Percent 8 31 81 140 155 105 173 182 Total 100% 7:59 7:00- 6:59 6:00- 5:59 5:00- 4:59 4:00- 3:59 3:00- 2:59 2:00- 1:59 1:00- 12:59 12:00- 0111 1 000— 5565 5 4824 11:59 11:00- Hour of Service 10:59 10:00- 9:59 9:00- ——————— 14———— 8:59 8:00- 7:59 7:00- 6:59 6:00- 5:59 5:00- 5 16 13 12 7 3 10 11 11 15 12 18 18 10 15 6 — — — 17 — 9 14 14 14 11 9 10 7 10 18 17 18 11 7 4 4:59 4:00- Total 7 29 48 85 58 58 60 66 50 75 76 90 67 52 36 18 875 Percent of Total 0.8% 3.3% 5.5% 9.7% 6.6% 6.6% 6.9% 7.5% 5.7% 8.6% 8.7% 10.3% 7.7% 5.9% 4.1% 2.1% TABLE 13: PCT Average Fixed-Route Boardings By Route Hour of Day Highway 49 - Auburn Loop 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 Highway 49 - Northbound 0 0 9 18 19 21 11 16 2 7 9 8 10 7 3 — Colfax/Alta Highway 49 - Southbound 2 4 1 6 5 12 16 16 15 25 19 14 10 5 5 — Sierra College/Lincoln — — 6 6 3 5 6 8 9 11 12 13 7 11 4 4 Lincoln/Sierra College — — 5 12 8 6 6 Light Rail-Auburn Auburn-Light Rail Route Note: Data based on an average of counts conducted 1/7/03 and 2/26/03. Source: County of Placer Public Works Department.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 12 Short Range Transit Plan Update

the morning at 7:00 A.M. and then peak in the afternoon with 90 total boardings at 3:00 P.M. However, the total number of boardings drops off in the late afternoon and evening during the last couple of hours of service. The Auburn-Light Rail Express and Highway 49 Shuttle make up the largest portion of boardings in the PCT system (40.5 percent and 33.6 percent, respectively). The Sierra College - Lincoln service has a combined percentage of boardings equal to 21.3 percent. This data is based upon boarding and alighting counts conducted on January 7, 2003 and February 26, 2003.

Passenger Activity by Stop

Boarding and alighting data was collected on each route in October 2002 and June 2003 for all PCT routes. The data are summarized in Appendix C (see Tables C-1A through C-1M). The data was averaged to provide the total average daily boardings, alightings, and total passenger activity at each stop. The most active stops on each route and total passenger activity by route are presented in Table 14. The data indicates that the single most active PCT bus stop is the Elder’s Transfer Center in Auburn, with an average daily count of 89 passenger boardings and 133 passenger alightings. Other major bus stops include the Galleria transfer point, the Lincoln transfer point, Sierra College, the BelAir Center on SR 49, Ralph’s / Rite-Aid on SR 49, the RT Light Rail station, the DeWitt - Sheriff’s office and the Auburn/Louis & Orlando transfer center.

The following route segments generated low or no boardings/alightings:

Highway 49: No bus stops or route segments with low passenger activity.

Sierra College: With the exception of the Lynroc, Lincoln, Sierra College and Galleria bus stops, the remainder of the route experiences relatively low ridership (fewer than ten boardings or alightings).

Auburn - Light Rail: No bus stops or route segments with low passenger activity.

Colfax/Alta: Ridership on this route is low. Surprisingly, no passenger activity was recorded at the Elder’s Transfer Center.

Taylor Road: Ridership on this route is low. The greatest passenger activity was recorded at Sierra College and the Elder’s Transfer Center.

Lincoln to Sierra College: With the exception of the Lincoln and Galleria transfer points, ridership is relatively low on this route.

The boarding and alighting data also provide ridership by hour for each route. Ridership on the full-day routes (Highway 49, Sierra College and Lincoln to Sierra College routes) is highest during the morning and afternoon commute patterns, although ridership on the Sierra College and Lincoln to Sierra College also demonstrates a mid-morning and early-afternoon periods.

Schedule Adherence

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 13

4 3 42 64 76 50 51 25 63 56 13 209 223 Total 4 18 33 35 22 25 30 31 95 04 03 24 30 41 21 28 89 133 26 33 25 103 107 Boardings Alightings Average Weekday Passenger Activity College Lincoln - Sierra Taylor Road Colfax-Alta Rail Auburn - Light Sierra College Southbound Highway 49 - On Off On Off On Off On Off On Off On Off On Off 18 7 7 24 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 23 5 5 12 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 13 Northbound N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 16 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 9 5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 44 40 36 36 N/A N/A N/A N/A 23 31 N/A N/A N/A N/A 22 34 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 19 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 26 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 7 19 19 N/A N/A 7 0 0 7 Highway 49 - TABLE 14: Placer County Transit Average Weekday Bus Stop Activity Bus Stops Lincoln Auburn/Louis & Orlando N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 24 18 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Sierra College Lynroc Dewitt - Sheriff's Office 27 1Loomis 1 21 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Galleria Bus Stop Transfer Centers Elder's Transfer Center 0 83 64 17 N/A N/A 21 28Belair Center 0 0 5 5 N/A N/A Ralph's / Rite-Aid Light Rail Colfax Amtrak Alta Store Note: On-board counts completed by Moore & Associates in October 2002 and LSC March 2003.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 14 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Appendix D (see Tables D-1A through D-1J). For the most part, PCT routes demonstrated good on-time performance. However, some routes and runs were significantly late, and, in some cases, early. As presented, the following conclusions can be made regarding the on-time performance of the PCT routes:

In general, late times were consistently recorded on the all-day routes during peak traffic / passenger load periods. To some degree, this can be expected due to the heavy traffic often encountered along the I-80 corridor, particularly in the Roseville area.

Although the surveyors were instructed to coordinate their watches with the driver’s watch, on occasion there appears to be inconsistencies in the manner in which the times were recorded on the survey sheets. For example, it is unlikely that a bus could be 10 minutes early at one stop and then 2 minutes early at the next bus stop.

Early departures were recorded on at least one run on each route, with the exception of the North Auburn Loop of the Highway 49 service (which experienced late trips on each run). Early departures were recorded at every bus stop along the Taylor Road service. In general, early departures are not tolerated by transit agencies, since it renders the schedule unreliable in the eyes of riders. Again, the reader should be cautioned that the surveyors may have incorrectly recorded departures times. Nonetheless, PCT officials should consider implementing a “no early departures” training campaign to ensure early departures do not become a recurring problem.

On average, the schedule adherence times recorded on the Lincoln service was the best of all the PCT routes (the least variation between early and late departures). The greatest variation was recorded the Taylor Road service, where a large number of departures were recorded as early.

PCT Hours and Miles of Service

Table 15 presents PCT vehicle service hours and miles by service type for Fiscal Year 2001-02. Charter services are not included in the table, nor is the Taylor Road Shuttle service, since it is provided under contract by CTSA. The data indicate that PCT operated a total of 31,993 vehicle service hours and 628,575 vehicle service miles. Fewer than 10 percent of vehicle service hours and miles were operated for the ARC service. Among the fixed-route and DAR services, 26.7 percent of the vehicle service hours and 40.8 percent of the vehicle service miles were operated on the Auburn to Light Rail route. Approximately 23 percent of the vehicle service hours and miles were operated on the Lincoln/Sierra College Route. Additionally, the Highway 49 Shuttle service operated over 18.5 percent of the system’s vehicle service hours and 13.7 percent of the system’s vehicle service miles. The DAR service accounted for 15.4 percent of PCT’s total vehicle service hours and 8.6 percent of the vehicle service miles. The Colfax/Alta route had the lowest service quantities, with only 2,000 vehicle service hours (6.3 percent) and 32,975 vehicle service miles (5.2 percent).

PCT Vanpool Program

PCT currently coordinates ten vanpools, and each van averages ten to twelve participants. The County pays for the fuel and the lease of the vans, which are provided and insured by VPSI. The

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 15

TABLE 15: PCT Service Miles and Hours by Route, FY 2001-02

Vehicle Service Hours Vehicle Service Miles Service Number Per c en t Number Per c en t

Weekday Only - PCT Routes

Auburn - Light Rail "Express" 8,021.0 33.8% 239,844 49.1%

Highway 49 Shuttle 6,680.0 28.2% 80,201 16.4%

Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College 7,019.0 29.6% 135,608 27.8%

Colfax/ Alta 2,000.0 8.4% 32,755 6.7%

Subtotal 23,720.0 100% 488,408 100%

Saturdays Only - PCT Routes

Auburn - Light Rail "Express" 520.0 41.8% 16,432 56.4%

Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College 364.0 29.3% 6,999 24.0%

Highway 49 Shuttle 358.8 28.9% 5,720 19.6%

Subtotal 1,242.8 100% 29,151 100%

Week d ays & Sat u r d ays

Auburn - Light Rail "Express" 8,541.0 30.5% 256,276 44.6%

Highway 49 Shuttle 7,038.8 25.1% 85,921 15.0%

Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College 7,383.0 26.3% 142,607 24.8%

Colfax/ Alta 2,000.0 7.1% 32,755 5.7%

Subtotal 24,962.8 89.1% 517,559 90.1%

Alta Regional Service 3,062.0 10.9% 57,041 9.9%

System Total 28,025 100% 574,600 100%

Note: Does not include the Taylor Road Shuttle, which is operated by CTSA. Source: County of Placer Public Works Department.

average monthly cost of the fuel for all ten vans is approximately $2,264.00, and the average cost for the lease of all ten vans per month is $12,287.00. Under the current fare structure, the individual participants each pay a set fee, currently averaging $80.00 (the driver pays nothing as

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 16 Short Range Transit Plan Update part of the operating agreement). The budget for the program allows up to ten vanpools. Origins and destinations of the current vanpools are as follows:

Auburn to J and 40th, Sacramento Colfax to Sacramento (Capitol Area) Colfax to 5th and N Street, Sacramento Roseville (off Riverside) to Beale Air Force Base Weimar Crossroads to Folsom Blvd. Caltrans Auburn to Davis Loomis to 13th and O Street, Sacramento Foresthill to J Street and 5th, Sacramento Auburn to 5th and Broadway, Sacramento Colfax to Sacramento and 16th.

PCT Capital Assets

Current Vehicle Fleet

The vehicle inventory for PCT is presented in Table 16. As presented, PCT currently has 19 buses, including four new 35-passenger Orion buses. Buses range in size from 28-passenger to 35-passenger. All of the buses have bike racks and wheelchair lifts. The estimated replacement dates of the vehicles are shown in the table as well. As indicated, six of the vehicles in the fleet are due for replacement this year, and three more in 2005. PCT currently specifies 12-year / 500,000-mile vehicles when purchasing new buses.

TABLE 16: PCT Vehicle I nventory

Fuel W heel- Funding Year of Planned Vehicle # Year Make Length Mileage (1) Source Seating chair Source Replacement (2)

901 1990 Bluebird 28 337138 Diesel 28 1 TDA 2003 910 1991 Bluebird 28 308503 Diesel 28 1 TDA 2003 913 1991 Bluebird 28 340948 Diesel 28 1 TDA 2003 930 1993 Bluebird 32 348988 Diesel 32 2 TDA 2003 931 1993 Bluebird 32 327060 Diesel 32 2 TDA 2003 932 1993 Bluebird 32 319128 Diesel 32 2 TDA 2003 941 1994 Bluebird 32 368905 Diesel 32 2 TDA 2005 942 1994 Bluebird 32 359120 Diesel 32 2 TDA 2005 950 1995 Bluebird 32 368445 Diesel 32 2 TDA 2005 970 1997 Bluebird 30 121007 CNG 30 2 TDA, AB2766 2007 971 1997 Bluebird 30 126157 CNG 30 2 TDA, AB2766 2009 0014 2000 Orion 30 123808 CNG 30 2 TDA, FTA 2012 0015 2000 Orion 30 132960 CNG 30 2 TDA, FTA 2012 0016 2001 Orion 30 104324 CNG 30 2 FTA, SECAT 2013 0017 2001 Orion 30 71354 CNG 30 2 FTA, SECAT 2013 0301 2003 Orion 35 New CNG 35 2 FTA, SECAT 2015 0302 2003 Orion 35 New CNG 35 2 FTA, SECAT 2015 0303 2003 Orion 35 New CNG 35 2 FTA, SECAT 2015 0304 2003 Orion 35 New CNG 35 2 FTA, SECAT 2015

Note 1: As of June 2003 Note 2: Based on PCT specifications for a heavy- duty bus (economically useful life of 12 years/ 500,000 miles).

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 17

Passenger Amenities

The “street furniture” provided by a transit operation is an important component to the system’s attractiveness to both passengers and non-passengers – particularly for a transit system with the high summer temperatures experienced in the Sacramento Valley. Bus shelters and benches can play a large role in improving the overall image of a transit system, and in improving the convenience of transit as a Plan was approved travel mode. A Countywide Transit Shelter plan was adopted by the PCTPA Board in April, 1998.

Nine locations in the PCT service area were included in a prioritized list of transit shelter needs, and an additional ten sites were listed for consideration. The PCTPA Board awarded a $350,000 CMAQ grant for shelters in May 1999. Shelters have since been installed at some of the sites listed in the report, and others are in the planning stage.

Facilities

PCT offices, bus storage, and maintenance functions are located at the Placer County office complex located at the DeWitt Center. The DeWitt Center is located north of Auburn, just west of SR 49, north of Atwood Road and south of Bell Road. The facilities are inadequate for the present needs of the transit system. There is a lack of bus parking, no lockers for drivers, and inadequate office space for supervisors and administration. The evaluation of facility requirements will be a component of the alternative analysis of this study, taking into consideration such factors as the number of supervisors requiring closed office space, the need for a separated room for counting money, driver locker space, etcetera.

PCT Financial Analysis

Revenue

Table 17 summarizes PCT revenues for Fiscal Year 2001-02. As presented, operating revenues for PCT totaled $3,423,585 – more than double the 1989-1999 amount of $1,682,107. This increase is reflective of the huge growth in Western Placer County during this time, and the correlating increase in transit funding and service levels. TDA funding provided a total of 76.5 percent of the funding. Fare revenue, including farebox, vanpool fares, and charter fares, totaled 5.1 percent of the revenue. Contract revenue and revenue from jurisdictions receiving PCT service contributed $532,739 in revenue, or 15.6 percent of operating revenue.

Expenses and Cost Allocation Model

Table 18 summarizes PCT expenses for Fiscal Year 2001-02 and presents a “cost allocation model” for the PCT transit system. As shown, expenses totaled $2,570,562. Administrative costs totaled $480,018, or 18.7 percent of total expenses. Operating costs, including such items as driver wages and salaries, fuel and maintenance, totaled $1,463,387, or 56.9 percent of the total expenses. Purchased transportation accounted for 24.4 percent of the cost.

The cost model allocates each line item to the service variable that most directly generates the need for the cost. When divided by the total quantity of service variable, an equation was developed that can be used to accurately estimate the total annual budget required under

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 18 Short Range Transit Plan Update

TABLE 17: PCT Revenues, FY 2001-02

Amount Percent of Total

Fare Revenues Farebox $97,621 2.9% Alta Regional Center (ARC) $126,000 3.7% Charter $3,958 0.1% Vanpool Fares $71,856 2.1% General Reimbursement (1) $21,201 0.6% Subtotal $320,636 9.4%

Funding from Local Jurisdictions Colfax $6,719 0.2% Loomis $22,340 0.7% Rocklin $301,208 8.8% Lincoln $76,472 2.2% Roseville $0 0.0% Auburn $0 0.0% Subtotal $406,739 11.9%

TDA Funding Local Transportation Funds (LTF) $2,371,396 69.3% State Transit Assistance (STA) $246,366 7.2% Subtotal $2,617,762 76.5% Other Interest $47,491 1.4% Insurance Refunds $4,531 0.1% State Compensation Insurance $16,562 0.5% PCTPA - CMAQ Advertising $9,840 0.3% Miscellaneous $24 0.0% Subtotal $78,448 2.3%

Total Operating Revenue $3,423,585 100%

Capital Revenue SECAT Buses $637,300 88.8% CMAQ - Commuter Buses $80,000 11.2% Total Capital Revenue $717,300

TOTAL REVENUE $4,140,885

Note 1: Fare revenue misapplied in accounting.

Source: County of Placer Public Works Department.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 19

TABLE 18: PCT Expenses and Cost Model, FY 2001-02

Cost Factor

Vehicle Vehicle Line I tem Expense Percent Fi x ed Ser v i c e H o u r Service Mile Peak Vehicle

Administrative Salaries & Wages $267,019 10.4% $267,019 – – – Communications $9,809 0.4% $9,809 – – – Computer Equipment $227 0.0% $227 – – – Dues, Subscriptions $7,891 0.3% $7,891 – – – Printing, Postage $8,795 0.3% $8,795 – – – Office Supplies $4,771 0.2% $4,771 – – – County Office Support $100,153 3.9% $100,153 – – – Rents, Leases $9,139 0.4% $9,139 – – – Building Improvements/ Janitorial $17,711 0.7% $17,711 – – – Special Office Expense $37,348 1.5% $37,348 – – – Travel and Transportation $12,657 0.5% $12,657 – – – Training $3,013 0.1% $3,013 – – – Utilities $1,485 0.1% $1,485 – – – PCT Administrative Subtotal $480,018 18.7% $480,018 $0 $0 $0

Operating Drivers: Salaries & Wages $798,470 31.1% – $798,470 – Uniforms $5,237 0.2% – – – $5,237 Radio $6,477 0.3% – – – $6,477 General Liability Insurance $11,213 0.4% – – – $11,213 Parts $2,525 0.1% – – $2,525 – Maintenance $472,005 18.4% – – $472,005 – Fuel & Lubricants $152,174 5.9% – – $152,174 – Safety Materials $35 0.0% $35 – – – Sh o p Su p p l i es $ 6 9 5 0 . 0 % – – $695 – Drug Testing $778 0.0% – $778 – – I/ P Gasoline, Diesel, Parts $2,556 0.1% – – $2,556 – Mileage $11,222 0.4% – – $11,222 – PCT Operations Subtotal $1,463,387 56.9% $35 $799,248 $641,177 $22,927

Total Administrative and Operating (1) $1,943,405 75.6% $480,053 $799,248 $641,177 $22,927

Purchased Transportation $627,157 24.4% $627,157

Total Expenses $2,570,562 100% $1,107,210 $799,248 $641,177 $22,927

FY 2001- 02 Service Variable Quantities (1) (2) – 28,025 574,600 9

FY 2001- 02 Cost Equation Factors (3) (4) $1,107,210 $28.52 $1.12 $2,547

Note 1: PCT- operated services, including Alta Regional and Charter service. Does not include Highway 49 Dial- A- Ride service. Note 2: Does not include Dial- A- Ride. Note 3: Cost per vehicle- hour includes per- vehicle costs. Note 4: Cost per vehicle mile adjusted to reflect more typical unit cost, as determined by staff of County of Placer DPW. Source: County of Placer Department of Public Works and LSC.

alternative service plans. The cost model presents total Fiscal Year 2001-02 costs of $2,570,562. Total fixed costs were $1,107,210 (including administration and purchased service). Variable costs included average costs of $1.12 per vehicle service mile, plus $28.52 per vehicle service hour, plus $2,547 per vehicle operated. These cost factors are utilized in a subsequent portion of this study to develop a reasonable estimate of the marginal cost of proposed new or expanded transit services.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 20 Short Range Transit Plan Update

PCT Fiscal Year 2001-02 Performance Analysis

To gain insight into the efficiency and effectiveness of PCT’s services, it is useful to conduct an analysis of ridership and operating data on a service category basis. Ridership and operating statistics for Fiscal Year 2001-02 were reviewed to identify operating characteristics, fares, and operating costs for each route. Fares were then subtracted from costs to identify the average subsidy required to fund each route. Finally, these data were used to evaluate a number of productivity and service measures.

Table 19 presents overall operating and performance data for all PCT’s fixed-routes for Fiscal Year 2001-02. As presented in Figure 14, annual ridership ranged from a low of 7,577 on the Alta/Colfax service to a high of 79,410 on the Auburn-Light Rail service.

The systemwide operating cost in Fiscal Year 2001-02 was $1,943,407 and the systemwide farebox revenues totaled $223,621. The resulting annual operating subsidy was $1,719,786. Figure 15 presents annual operating subsidy by route/service. As shown, the Auburn-Light Rail service required the greatest annual operating subsidy ($644,226), followed by the Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College service ($485,490) and the Highway 49 Shuttle ($384,724). The services operated by PCT under contract to the Alta Regional Center only required $79,830 in annual operating subsidy and the twice-daily Colfax/Alta service only required $125,516.

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 and in Figure 16, the system as a whole achieved a productivity of 7.6 one-way passenger trips per vehicle service hour. The fixed-route service (as a whole) achieved a productivity of 7.8 one-way passenger-trips per vehicle service hour, while the contracted Alta Regional and Charter service achieved a productivity of 6.5. On a route-by-route basis, the Highway 49 Shuttle achieved the highest number of passenger-trips per vehicle service hour (10.5), followed by the Auburn-Light Rail service (9.3), the Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College service (4.4) and the Colfax/Alta route (3.8).

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). This data is presented in the table and in Figure 17. The systemwide operating subsidy per one-way passenger trip in Fiscal Year 2001-02 was $8.05. The Alta Regional service achieved the lowest subsidy per passenger trip at $3.99. Of the fixed-routes, the Highway 49 Shuttle achieved the lowest per passenger-trip subsidy ($5.22), followed by the Auburn-Light Rail service ($8.11), the Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College service ($14.80) and the Colfax/Alta service ($16.57).

The financial efficiency of a system can be measured by the operating farebox recovery ratio, which is illustrated in the table and compared by route/service category in Figure 18. The farebox recovery ratio is particularly important as a measurement for meeting the mandated minimums required for state funding. The systemwide farebox recovery ratio in Fiscal Year 2001-02 was 11.5 percent. By far, the greatest farebox recovery ratio was achieved on the contracted Alta Regional service, which boasted an impressive figure of 61.2 percent. Of the fixed-routes, the Highway 49 Shuttle achieved the greatest farebox recovery ratio (8.8 percent),

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 21

7.6 0.37 Total 11.5% $8.05 $9.10 28,025 $69.35 574,600 213,524 $480,018 $223,621 $1,719,786 $1,943,407 $1,463,387 6.5 0.35 3,062 61.2% 57,041 20,022 $67.22 $79,830 $52,447 $205,830 $153,383 $126,000 lta Regional and Charter A 7.8 0.37 5.6% $8.48 $3.99 $8.98 $10.28 24,963 $69.61 517,559 193,502 Subtotal $97,621 $427,572 $1,639,956 $1,737,577 $1,310,005 Fixed-Route Sierra College Colfax/Alta Lincoln/ Rocklin/ PCT Fixed-Routes Shuttle Highway 49 9.3 10.5 4.4 3.8 Rail 0.31 0.86 0.23 0.23 5.9% 8.8% 3.3% 3.0% 8,541 7,039 7,383 2,000 $8.62 $5.72 $15.30 $17.07 79,410 73,709 32,806 7,577 $80.12 $59.94 $68.00 $64.67 256,276 85,921 142,607 32,755 $40,062 $37,186 $16,551 $3,822 $146,293 $120,563 $126,459 $34,257 $684,288 $421,910 $502,041 $129,338 $644,226 $384,724 $485,490 $125,516 $537,995 $301,347 $375,582 $95,081 Auburn-Light p (1) TABLE 19: PCT Service Performance Analysis, FY 2001-02 Total Oper. Cost per Passenger-Tri Performance Indicators Passenger-Trips per VSH Total Oper. Cost per VSH Passenger-Trips per VSM Total Oper. Farebox Ratio Total Operating Subsidy Total Oper. Subsidy per Pass.-Trip $8.11 $5.22 $14.80 $16.57 Allocated Overhead Total Operating Cost Line Item Allocated Operating Cost Farebox Revenues Vehicle Service Miles Vehicle Service Hours Operating Characteristics One-Way Passenger-Trips Note 1: Allocated by proportion of total vehicle service hours. Source: County of Placer Public Works Department.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 22 Short Range Transit Plan Update

FI GURE 14: PCT Annual Ridership Fiscal Year 2001-02

Auburn- Light Rail 79,410

Highway 49 Shuttle 73,709

Lincoln/ Rocklin/ Sierra 32,806 College

Colf ax / Alta 7,577

Alta Regional and 20,022 Charter

0 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 Annual One-Way Passenger-Trips

FI GURE 15: PCT Annual Operating Subsidy Fiscal Year 2001-02

Auburn- Light Rail $644,226

Highway 49 Shuttle $384,724

Lincoln/ Rocklin/ Sierra $485,490 College

Colf ax / Alta $125,516

Alta Regional and $79,830 Charter

$0 $250,000 $500,000 $750,000 Annual Operating Subsidy

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 23

FI GURE 16: PCT Average Productivity Fiscal Year 2001-02

Auburn- Light Rail 9.3

Highway 49 Shuttle 10.5

Lincoln/ Rocklin/ Sierra 4.4 College

Colf ax / Alta 3.8

Alta Regional and 6.5 Charter

- 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 Average One-Way Passenger-Trips per Vehicle Service Hour

FI GURE 17: PCT Subsidy Per Passenger-Trip Fiscal Year 2001-02

Auburn- Light Rail $8.11

Highway 49 Shuttle $5.22

Lincoln/ Rocklin/ Sierra $14.80 College

Colf ax / Alta $16.57

Alta Regional and $3.99 Charter

$0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00 Annual Operating Subsidy per One-Way Passenger-Trip

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 24 Short Range Transit Plan Update

FI GURE 18: PCT Operating Farebox Recovery Ratio Fiscal Year 2001-02

Auburn- Light Rail 5.9%

Highway 49 Shuttle 8.8%

Lincoln/ Rocklin/ Sierra 3.3% College

Colf ax / Alta 3.0%

Alta Regional and 61.2% Charter

0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% Annual Operating Farebox Recovery Ratio

followed by the Auburn-Light Rail service (5.9 percent), the Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College service (3.3 percent) and the Colfax/Alta service (3.0 percent).

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Existing PCT Service

The following are among the strengths of the service currently provided by PCT:

The routes provide generally good coverage of the region: public transit services are available throughout a majority of the urbanized portions of the study area and along major corridors of travel.

The ability to transfer from PCT to other routes is in general quite good, considering the level of service available in the region. Allowing transfers at no charge increases that connectivity.

Through the Auburn-Light Rail Express, PCT now provides regional connections to transit services in Sacramento. Transfers can be made at the Louis Lane/Orlando station or the Watt Avenue/I-80 Light Rail Station.

The hours of operation have expanded since adoption of the previous Short-Range Transit Plan study, which in turns supports potential employment ridership.

The transit service is well-run, with a high level of attention to the needs of the existing passengers.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 25

The following are weaknesses of the current PCT service.

Early departures were recorded during the October 2002 and March 2003 surveys. PCT should consider implementing a “no early departures” policy. In addition, late departures were consistently recorded on the North Auburn Loop on the Highway 49 service. Methods to rectify this issue will be considered in subsequent phases of this study.

With no provision of Sacramento commuter services east of Roseville, the region as a whole is not serving a very substantial and potentially cost-effective public transit market. However, this is a service PCT is soon to implement.

While routes operate in close proximity, there is no effective connection between transit services in Placer County and Folsom in Sacramento County.

Service frequency is limited to hourly headways. This level is typically considered to be a minimum level of service, which limits transit service’s ability to attract choice riders.

Service levels in the more remote portions of the region (such as east of Bowman, or Foresthill) are quite low. Extensive low-density rural residential areas are not provided with any form of public transit service.

The equity of payment by the municipalities served by PCT could be reexamined.

AUBURN TRANSIT

Auburn Transit operates in a deviate fixed-route, and buses will deviate up to three quarters of a mile from the scheduled route upon request. In addition, buses serve several call-in stops upon request (at least two hours in advance). Buses operate Monday through Friday from 6:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Weekend service is available from 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. on Saturdays and 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. on Sundays. In addition, free service is provided on New Year’s Eve on a call in basis. At certain stops, Auburn Transit is scheduled to provide transfer opportunities with PCT and Nevada County’s Gold Country Stage.

Auburn Transit Deviated Fixed-Route Service

Two interlinking routes are operated, the Blue and Red Route, as illustrated in Figure 13 above. These routes operate Monday through Friday, except for major holidays, as follows:

The Blue Route travels counter-clockwise around the central portion of Auburn. The loop begins at Elder’s Transfer Station, travels south on Auburn Folsom road to Sacramento street, follows High Street east to Lincoln Way via Lubeck Mansion/ Borland, turns west on Bowman Road, then to Auburn Ravine Road, travels to Staples on Fulweiler Avenue, then back to Elder’s Transfer Center via the town center. The route diverges from the loop to serve the Indian Rancheria, Recreation Park, Herrington Drive, Valley Oaks, and Amtrak. The route operates from 6:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 26 Short Range Transit Plan Update

The Red Route similarly serves a loop around the center of the city, but travels in a clockwise direction. The Red Route diverges from the loop to serve Old Town Post Office, Amtrak, and Lubeck Mansion. The route operates from 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.

On Saturdays and Sundays, only the Blue Route is operated. Service is provided from 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. on Saturdays and from 9:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. on Sundays.

Auburn Transit Transfers

Transfer points between the Red and Blue Routes are located at the Raley’s Center, Town Center, and Elder’s Transfer Center. As mentioned above, Auburn Transit provides timed transfer opportunities with both PCT and Nevada County’s Gold Country Stage at Elder’s Transfer Center. Free transfers are available between Auburn Transit and these systems. However, Auburn Transit does not share farebox revenues with either of these partners.

Auburn Transit Ridership

Annual and Monthly Ridership

Total ridership for Fiscal Year 2001-02 totaled 46,463 one-way passenger-trips. As shown in Figure 19, the highest ridership was in May, with ridership of 5,856 one-way passenger-trips. The next busiest month was September, with 4,502 one-way passenger-trips. The lowest ridership was during November, with only 2,935 one-way passenger-trips.

Ridership increased 30 percent between Fiscal Years 1998-99 and 2001-02. Much of the increase is due to the efforts of Auburn Transit personnel to market the service to area school children.

Passenger Activity by Stop

Table 20 summarizes boarding and alighting for one day on the Blue and Red Routes. More detailed data gathered through on board surveys conducted by LSC and Moore & Associates can be found in Appendix C (see Tables C2-A and C-2B). The busiest stop on both routes is the Elder’s Transfer Center with 22 boardings recorded during the survey. The Town Center and Raley’s Center bus stops are tied for the next busiest stop on the Red Route (seven boardings), and the Town Center bus stop is the next busiest bus stop on the Blue Route (eleven boardings).

Schedule Adherence

As part of the bus stop passenger activity surveys, the consultant also measured the on-time performance of the buses in comparison to the published schedule. The data are summarized in Appendix D (see Tables D-2A and D-2B). For the most part, Auburn Transit routes demonstrated good on-time performance, with most late departures within five minutes of the scheduled departure. However, some runs departed earlier than the published scheduled time.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 27

FI GURE 19: Auburn Transit Ridership, FY 2001-02

5,000 4,502 4,436 4,500 4,105 4,200 4,000 3,689 3,754 3,442 3,500 3,268 3,323 2,935 2,953 3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500 One- Passenger- Way Trips 1,000

500

0 2 2 2 2 01 0 0 - -01 - -0 l- 01 t n y Ju ug ep- 01 eb- 02 ar- 02 pr- A S Oc Nov- 01 Dec- 01 Ja F M A Ma Ju n - 0

TABLE 20: Auburn Transit Average Weekday Bus Stop Activity

Red Route Blue Route Bus Stop Boardings Alightings Bus Stop Boardings Alightings

Elder's Transfer Center 0 14 Elder's Transfer Center 0 18 Courthouse 1 0 Old Town P.O. 0 1 Nevada St. / P.O. 1 0 Community Center 0 4 Library 0 1 Maidu Market / Indian Ranch 1 4 P.O. / DMV 0 0 Carolyn/Ginger/Poet 0 1 Nevada Street / SR 49 0 0 Pacific / Sacramento St. 1 1 Marguerite Mine / Palms 0 0 High St. / Fairgrounds 0 5 Valley Oaks 0 2 Lincoln Way / High St. 1 0 Town Center 7 10 Lubeck Mansion / Borland 2 7 Mikkelson/Villa/Brookside 1 0 Lincoln / Hwy 49 2 0 Auburn Ravine Rd. / Ashford Park 1 1 Lincoln Way / Alta Vista 4 11 Raleys Center 3 4 Lincoln / Carls Jr. 1 0 Luther / Racquet Club 1 0 Raley's Center 8 11 Raley's / Bowling Alley 7 0 Bowling Alley 3 6 Lincoln/ McDonalds 1 0 Jimboys / E. Hillcrest 0 1 Lincoln Way / Hidden Glen Way 0 2 Auburn Ravine Rd. / Ashford Park 5 4 Lincoln Way / Alta Vista 2 2 Placer Credit Union 1 0 Lincoln Way / Elm Avenue 1 2 Mikkelson / Valley Oaks 2 0 Lubeck 2 0 Palm Ave. / Hwy 49 2 0 Elm/ High 2 0 Nevada St. / P.O. 3 0 Bank of America 1 0 Staples/ Fulweiler 1 0 Elder's Transfer Center 5 0 Town Center 11 2 Total 36 38 Elder's Transfer Center 22 0 Total 70 76 Note: On- board counts completed by Moore & Associates in October 2002 and LSC in March 2003.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 28 Short Range Transit Plan Update

As presented, the following conclusions can be made regarding the on-time performance of the PCT routes:

In general, late times were consistently recorded during peak traffic / passenger load periods. To some degree, this can be expected due to the heavy traffic encountered in Auburn during the peak commute periods.

Drivers seem to have difficulty maintaining on-time performance on the latter part of the Red Route in the afternoon.

Early departures were recorded on at least one run on each route. In general, early departures are not tolerated by transit agencies, since it renders the schedule unreliable in the eyes of riders. Again, as mentioned in the PCT analysis above, the reader should be cautioned that the surveyors may have incorrectly recorded departures times. Nonetheless, Auburn Transit officials should consider implementing a “no early departures” training campaign to ensure early departures do not become a recurring problem.

On average, the schedule adherence times recorded on the Blue Route service was the better of the two Auburn Transit routes (the least variation between early and late departures), although a greater amount of early departures were recorded on this route.

Route Deviations

Table 21 presents the results of a five-day survey of route deviations, conducted by Auburn Transit bus drivers. From June 11, 2003 to June 16, 2003, 43 route deviations were provided. The greatest number of route deviations was provided on Wednesday and Thursday (tied with 13 per service day). The fewest route deviations was provided on Saturday (no route deviation requests), followed by Monday (two requests).

Auburn Transit Hours and Miles

Auburn Transit operated a total of 5,354 vehicle service hours in Fiscal Year 2001-02, in comparison to approximately 4,118 vehicle service hours in Fiscal Year 1998-99. This represents total growth of 30 percent over the four-year period, equating to average annual growth of 6.8 percent. A total of 62,680 vehicle service miles was provided in Fiscal Year 2001- 02, in comparison to an estimated 49,695 vehicle service miles in Fiscal Year1998-99. Annual vehicle service miles increased 26.1 percent over the four-year period, equating to average annual growth 6.0 percent.

Auburn Transit Capital Assets

Vehicle Fleet

As presented in Table 22, Auburn Transit currently has four service vehicles. The two new El Dorado buses are powered by Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and have a capacity of 24 ambulatory passengers. All Auburn Transit vehicles are equipped with air conditioning, and feature wheelchair lifts. Maintenance staff is in the process of converting both 195 horsepower engines to 230 horsepower engines to better handle the steep terrain in the service area. The

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 29

TABLE 21: Auburn Transit Route Deviations

Day of Week Number of Deviations Percent of Total

Monday 2 4.9% Tuesday 0 0.0% Wednesday 13 31.7% Thursday 13 31.7% Friday 8 19.5% Sat u r d ay 0 0 . 0 % Sunday 7 17.1% Total 41

Note: Counts conducted from June 11 to June 16, 2003.

Source: Auburn Transit.

Table 22: Auburn Transit Vehicle Fleet

Number of Planned Seating Wheelchair Funding Replacement (1) Year Make Model Capacity Positions Source Year 2002 El Dorado 30' Bus 22- 24 2 SECAT 2010

2002 El Dorado 30' Bus 22- 24 2 SECAT 2010

2000 Ford Cutaway 15- 17 1 5311 2008

1998 Goshen 30' Bus 22- 24 2 TDA 2006

1987 Chevrolet Cutaway 17 0 TDA 2005

Note 1: Assuming an 8- year vehicle life.

Source: Auburn Transit, May 2003.

2000 Ford Cutaway minibus is gasoline-powered and has a capacity of 17 ambulatory passengers. The 1998 Goshen bus seats 24 ambulatory passengers. While the Goshen bus is not very old, it has experienced reliability problems since being purchased, and Auburn Transit is seeking to replace the vehicle as soon as funds become available.

Passenger Amenities

Auburn Transit routes have bus shelters located at the following bus stops:

Elder’s Transfer Center

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 30 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Valley Oaks – Auburn Ravine Road Movie Theater – Nevada Street Raley’s Center Alta Vista School – Lincoln Way Dairy Road and Incline

Additionally, the following bus stops have benches:

Alta Vista School – Lincoln Way (opposite shelter) Auburn Transition Center – Lincoln Way Lubeck Mansion Cherry Street Albertson’s Town Center Mikkelson Drive, near the Auburn Villa Apartments Brookside Apartments

Facilities

The transit vehicles are maintained at the Corporation Yard on Blocker Drive. Transit staff includes two full-time drivers (one of which also serves as a road supervisor), a permanent part- time driver, and three part-time temporary drivers. The transit service is self-dispatching, with direct call connections to a cellular phone answered by the bus driver.

Elder’s Transfer Center

The Elder’s Transfer Center is located in downtown Auburn, although it is currently too small to effectively accommodate the three transit systems that serve this facility and the high number of passengers boarding/alighting at this location. A multimodal Park and Ride facility is currently under construction at Nevada Street / Blocker Street, and it should be operational by the end of 2003. This facility will include 40 parking spaces (including disabled spaces), three to four bus shelters, and public restrooms. Funding has been secured from several sources, including Congestion Mitigation Air Quality funds, STA and Capital Corridor funds. The intent of the new facility is to serve as a transfer station for Auburn Transit, Gold Country Stage, PCT and Capital Corridor trains. However, more coordination with the other transit systems will be necessary to make this location an effective transfer station.

Auburn Transit Financial Analysis

Revenue

Auburn Transit’s funding sources for Fiscal Year 1998-99 through Fiscal Year 2002-03 are presented in Table 23. As shown, the largest source of revenue over the five-year period is TDA (LTF). Farebox revenues have varied over the years, with Fiscal Year 2000-01 showing the largest amount at $25,542. Fiscal Year 2001-02 funding for Auburn Transit totaled $682,608, including capital funding. Auburn Transit began receiving federal funds (FTA) in Fiscal Year 2000-01.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 31

TABLE 23: Auburn Transit Revenues, FY 1997-98 to FY 2001-02

Percentage Annual of Annual Funding Source Revenues Revenues

FY 1998 - 99 TDA (LTF) $130,412 70.9% TDA (STA) $17,964 9.8% Interest Income $5,113 2.8% Farebox Revenues $20,946 11.4% Other Revenues $9,626 5.2% Total $184,061 100%

FY 1999 - 00 TDA (LTF) $173,785 78.4% TDA (STA) $13,971 6.3% Interest Income $7,420 3.3% Farebox Revenues $22,479 10.1% Other Revenues $4,060 1.8% Total $221,715 100%

FY 2000 - 01 FTA $66,532 20.0% TDA (LTF) $152,108 45.8% TDA (STA) $13,746 4.1% Interest Income $7,760 2.3% Farebox Revenues $25,542 7.7% Other Revenues $66,568 20.0% Total $332,256 100%

FY 2001-02 FTA $56,428 8.3% TDA (LTF) $233,636 34.2% TDA (STA) $27,639 4.0% Interest Income $5,014 0.7% Farebox Revenues $24,464 3.6% Other Revenues $335,427 49.1% Total $682,608 100%

FY 2002-03 (estimate) FTA 5311 $56,053 9.7% TDA (LTF) $307,373 53.2% TDA (STA) $25,568 4.4% Interest Income $9,504 1.6% Farebox Revenues $18,000 3.1% Other Revenues $160,845 27.9% Total $577,343 100%

Source: City of Auburn Transit Enterprise fund and Auburn Transit Summaries for FY 1999- 2003. Financial audits for City of Auburn conducted by Ricciardi Accountants.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 32 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Expenses and Cost Allocation Model

The operating expenses for Auburn Transit service in Fiscal Year 2001-02 are summarized in Table 24. As the table shows, operating expenses totaled $293,490 for the fiscal year. Personnel expenses accounted for 78.8 percent of the total, and other operating expenses made up the remaining 21.2 percent.

A useful tool in analyzing transit options is an allocation model of the transit organization’s costs. In this analysis, also presented in Table 24, each cost item is assigned to one of four service variables (per peak vehicle, per vehicle service hours, per vehicle service mile, or fixed costs). As presented in the table, fixed costs are estimated at $68,693. The variable costs are $779 peak vehicle, plus $36.44 per vehicle service hour, plus $0.53 per vehicle service mile.

Auburn Transit Fiscal Years 1997-98 to 2001-02 Performance Analysis

To gain insight into the efficiency and effectiveness of Auburn Transit services, it is useful to conduct an analysis of ridership and operating data. Ridership and operating statistics for the past five fiscal years were reviewed to identify operating characteristics, fares, and operating costs. Fares were then subtracted from costs to identify the average subsidy required. Finally, these data were used to evaluate a number of productivity and service measures.

Table 25 presents overall operating and performance data for Auburn Transit for the past five fiscal years. As presented in the table and in Figure 20, annual ridership has increased steadily over the past five years, from 30,826 one-way passenger-trips in Fiscal Year 1997-98 to 46,463 passenger-trips in Fiscal Year 2001-02.

The systemwide operating cost in Fiscal Year 2001-02 was $293,490 and the systemwide farebox revenues totaled $20,475. The resulting annual operating subsidy was $273,015. Figure 21 presents annual operating subsidy over the past five years. As shown, the annual operating subsidy increased significantly between Fiscal Years 1998-99 and 1999-2000, and has increased relatively slowly since Fiscal Year 1999-2000.

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 and in Figure 22, the productivity of the system increased steadily between Fiscal Years 1997-98 and 1999- 2000, but it has decreased steadily since.

When the annual total operating subsidy is divided by the number of annual 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). This data is presented in Figure 23. The systemwide operating subsidy per one-way passenger-trip increased significantly since Fiscal Year 1999-2000, peaking in Fiscal Year 2001-02 ($5.88)

The financial efficiency of a system can be measured by the operating farebox recovery ratio, which is illustrated in the table and compared over the past five years in Figure 24. The farebox recovery ratio is particularly important as a measurement for meeting the mandated minimum of 10 percent required for TDA funding. The systemwide farebox recovery ratio in Fiscal Year

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 33

TABLE 24: Auburn Transit Operating Expenditures and Cost Model, FY 2001-02

Cost Factor Vehicle Vehicle Ser v i c e Annual Expenses Expense Percent Fi x ed Cost s Peak Veh i cl e Ser v i c e H o u r Mile

Expenses - Personnel

Payroll - Drivers and Supervisors $172,079 58.6% – – $172,079 –

Payroll - Administration $34,000 11.6% $34,000 – – –

Other Benefits (1) $25,193 8.6% $4,156 – $21,037 –

Personnel Subtotal $231,272 78.8% $38,156 $0 $193,116 $0

Expenses - Operations

Materials & Supplies $5,771 2.0% $5,771 – – $5,771

Vehicle Repair $17,660 6.0% – – – $17,660

Training $695 0.2% – – $695 –

Petroleum Products $9,680 3.3% – – – $9,680

Printing $320 0.1% – – $320 –

Professional Services (2) $5,412 1.8% $5,412 – – –

Dues & Subscriptions $225 0.1% $225 – – –

Legal & Advertising $1,199 0.4% $1,199 – – –

Uniforms $990 0.3% – $990 –

Personnel/ Employee Relations $2,496 0.9% $2,496 – – –

Communications $3,080 1.0% $3,080 – – –

Postage $170 0.1% $170 – – –

Utilities $1,918 0.7% $1,918 – – –

Travel and Meetings $961 0.3% $961 – – –

Liability Insurance $2,336 0.8% – $2,336 – –

Operating/ Transfers Out $9,305 3.2% $9,305 – – –

Operations Subtotal $62,218 21.2% $30,537 $2,336 $2,005 $33,111

Total Expenses $293,490 100% $68,693 $2,336 $195,121 $33,111

FY 2001- 02 Service Variable Quantities - 3 5,354 62,680

FY 2001- 02 Cost Factors $68,693 $779 $36.44 $0.53

Note 1: "Other benefits" allocated based on payroll division. Note 2: Contracted Services are for Environmental Consulting, Driver Training etc. Note 3: Includes Worker's Comp. Claims and finance dept. charges Source: City of Auburn and LSC.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 34 Short Range Transit Plan Update

TABLE 25: Auburn Transit Systemw ide Performance Analysis

Fiscal Year Line I tem 1997- 98 1998- 99 1999- 00 2000- 01 2001- 02

Operating Characteristics

One- Way Passenger- Trips (1) 30,826 35,613 43,719 43,868 46,463

Vehicle Service Hours (1) 4,010 4,118 4,188 4,697 5,355

Vehicle Service Miles (1) 38,449 49,695 52,131 55,823 62,680

Far eb o x Reven u es (1) $18,805 $18,759 $18,698 $20,647 $20,475

Estimated Operating Cost $95,918 $107,554 $162,603 $196,356 $224,797

Estimated Fixed Cost (2) $75,790 $84,985 $49,688 $60,003 $68,693

Total Operating Cost (1) $157,466 $144,235 $212,291 $256,359 $293,490

Operating Subsidy $77,113 $88,795 $143,904 $175,709 $204,322

Total Operating Subsidy $138,661 $125,476 $193,593 $235,712 $273,015

Per f or m an ce I n d icat or s

Passenger- Trips per VSH 7.7 8.6 10.4 9.3 8.7

Passenger- Trips per VSM 0.80 0.72 0.84 0.79 0.74

Total Operating Cost per VSH $39.27 $35.02 $50.69 $54.58 $54.81

Total Operating Cost per Passenger- T $5.11 $4.05 $4.86 $5.84 $6.32

Total Operating Subsidy per Passenge $4.50 $3.52 $4.43 $5.37 $5.88

Total Farebox Ratio 11.9% 13.0% 8.8% 8.1% 7.0%

Average Passenger Fare $0.61 $0.53 $0.43 $0.47 $0.44

Note 1: Numbers in italics are from the Performance Audit of Auburn Transit by JKaplan & Associates, July 1998. Note 2: Fixed costs prior to FY 1998- 99 are estimated using FY 1998- 99 percentage of total cost (41.1 percent). Fixed costs after FY 1998- 99 are estimated using FY 2001- 02 percentage of total cost (49.4 percent).

Source: City of Auburn Transit Enterprise Fund #27 Budget.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 35

FI GURE 20: Auburn Transit Annual Ridership Fiscal Years 1997-98 to 2001-02

1997- 98 30,826

1998- 99 35,613

1999- 00 43,719 Fiscal Year Fiscal 2000- 01 43,868

2001- 02 46,463

0 25,000 50,000 75,000 Annual One-Way Passenger-Trips

FI GURE 21: Auburn Transit Annual Operating Subsidy Fiscal Years 1997-98 to 2001-02

1997- 98 $138,661

1998- 99 $125,476

1999- 00 $193,593 Fiscal Year Fiscal 2000- 01 $235,712

2001- 02 $273,015

$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 Annual Operating Subsidy

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 36 Short Range Transit Plan Update

FI GURE 22: Auburn Transit Average Productivity Fiscal Years 1997-98 to 2001-02

1997- 98 7.7

1998- 99 8.6

1999- 00 10.4 Fiscal Year Fiscal 2000- 01 9.3

2001- 02 8.7

024681012 Average One-Way Passenger-Trips per Vehicle Service Hour

FI GURE 23: Auburn Transit Subsidy Per Passenger-Trip Fiscal Years 1997-98 to 2001-02

1997- 98 $4.50

1998- 99 $3.52

1999- 00 $4.43 Fiscal Year Fiscal 2000- 01 $5.37

2001- 02 $5.88

$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 Annual Operating Subsidy per One-Way Passenger-Trip

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 37

FI GURE 24: Auburn Transit Farebox Recovery Ratio Fiscal Years 1997-98 to 2001-02

1997- 98 11.9%

1998- 99 13.0%

1999- 00 8.8% Fiscal Year Fiscal 2000- 01 8.1%

2001- 02 7.0%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% Annual Operating Farebox Recovery Ratio

2001-02 was only 7.0 percent. In fact, it has remained below the 10 percent minimum since Fiscal Year 1999-2000. It should be noted that Auburn Transit’s operating cost increased after expanding service and adding two more buses. In addition, since many passengers transfer from PCT and Gold Country Stage’s Route 5 to Auburn Transit, no fare is collected by Auburn Transit for those passengers. Auburn plans to raise fares in the near future and hopes to coordinate this increase with other regional providers.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Existing Auburn Transit Service

The current Auburn Transit service has the following strengths:

The primary routes (Blue and Red) provide service to the majority of Auburn residents.

Auburn continues to expand service to meet residents’ needs.

The following are among the weaknesses of the current services:

The maps in the schedules are difficult to read.

Early departures were recorded during the October 2002 and March 2003 surveys. Auburn Transit should consider implementing a “no early departures” policy.

The Raley’s Center bus stop does not provide adequate space for passengers to board and alight, especially passengers in wheelchairs.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 38 Short Range Transit Plan Update

The Elder’s Transfer Center is too small to accommodate the three transit systems that serve this stop and the high number of passengers boarding and alighting at this location.

There is no transfer point between Auburn Transit and Placer County Transit in the northern end of Auburn.

The relatively poor financial performance of Auburn Transit services dictates that revisions must be made to make the service more financially efficient.

LINCOLN TRANSIT

The Department of Public Works of the City of Lincoln operates Lincoln Transit. Figure 13 above illustrates the service area of Lincoln Transit routes. Two weekday deviated fixed-routes are operated seven to eight times throughout the day, and a third during the morning only. No service is available on weekends. Because there is no school bus service available to area students, many parents rely on Lincoln Transit to provide their children transportation between home and school. However, the service is open to the general public.

Lincoln Transit Deviated Fixed-Route Service

All Lincoln Transit scheduled services will deviate from the scheduled route up to ¾-mile upon request. Lincoln Transit Route 102 is a single morning run which travels a 17-mile loop between 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 A.M. The service is targeted toward school age persons, although it is also open to the general public. Route 202 operates between 9:45 A.M. and 5:30 P.M. Starting from the Third and F Street transfer station, the route travels northeast to Harrison and East Eleventh Street, then operates a loop via Lincoln Parkway and Del Webb Boulevard in the southeast portion of town before returning to the transfer station. Route 203 operates from 8:45 A.M. to 5:30 P.M., beginning and ending at the Third and F Street transfer station. This route travels through Lincoln via First, Third and Sixth Streets, then the bus travels west to Flightline Drive, and returns to the transfer station via Fifth Street. Deviated fixed-route service operates Monday through Friday, except for major holidays. Buses will deviate up to ¾-mile from the route if requested, as well as stop at any safe location if a passenger flags the bus.

Lincoln Transit Dial-A-Ride Service

Lincoln Transit provides demand response service primarily for elderly and disabled persons, although the service is also open to the general public. Dial-A-Ride service is provided Monday through Friday from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. The service area includes the city limits of Lincoln, as well as the Roseville Galleria. Transfers to Placer County Transit and Roseville Transit (fixed-route, Dial-A-Ride and commuter) are available at the Galleria. Passengers are requested to make reservations between two hours and two weeks in advance to schedule a Dial-A-Ride pickup. The vehicles used for this service are wheelchair accessible.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 39

Lincoln Transit Ridership

Monthly Ridership

The total ridership for Fiscal Year 2001-02 was 25,877 one-way passenger-trips. This represents a 15.8 percent decrease in one-way passenger-trips in comparison to Fiscal Year 1998-99 ridership. This decrease in ridership can be attributed to the construction of a new school in an area not currently served by Lincoln Transit. Of the total ridership, 4,871 one-way passenger- trips (18.1percent) were provided to general public riders and 21,006 (81.2 percent) were provided to students. These percentages were estimated based on the percentage of student riders during the first two weeks of October 2002 and March 2003. As presented in Table 26, the greatest number of one-way passenger-trips was provided in May (3,066), followed closely by October (3,039) and September (2,621). The fewest one-way passenger-trips were provided in June, July, August and December, when the schools are either not in session or operate a reduced schedule.

TABLE 26: Lincoln Transit Ridership, FY 2001-02

Ja n . Jul. 2001 Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. 2002 Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Total

Monthly Ridership 732 1,337 2,621 3,039 2,327 1,844 2,497 2,508 2,213 2,592 3,066 1,101 25,877

Percent of Average 33.9% 62.0% 121.5% 140.9% 107.9% 85.5% 115.8% 116.3% 102.6% 120.2% 142.2% 51.1%

Source: Lincoln Transit and LSC.

Passenger Activity by Stop

Table 27 summarizes boarding and alighting for one day on three Lincoln Transit routes. More detailed data gathered through on board surveys conducted by LSC and Moore & Associates can be found in Appendix C (see Tables C3-A and C-3C). The busiest stop on all three routes is the 12th Street & East Avenue bus stop with 20 boardings recorded during the survey, followed by the 1st and O Streets bus stop.

Schedule Adherence

As part of the bus stop passenger activity surveys, the consultant also measured the on-time performance of the buses in comparison to the published schedule. The data are summarized in Appendix D (see Tables D-3A and D-3C). It should be noted that the surveyors only recorded the departure times at those bus stops where boardings or alightings occurred. As such, departure times are not reported in Appendix D for those bus stops that did not experience passenger activity. In summary, most runs were able to maintain schedule adherence of five minutes (or less) late, although several departure times were recorded as early.

Lincoln Transit Hours and Miles of Service

In the last few years, Lincoln Transit has increased service hours from just morning and evening to all day hourly service in order to accommodate the general public as well as school children.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 40 Short Range Transit Plan Update

2 Route 203 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 00 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 Boardings Aligtings l Tota Bus Stop Lakeside & Nicolas 5th & Joiner Streets 5th & R Streets 5th & O Streets 5th & N Streets 5th & K Streets 5th & H Streets 1st & O Streets 1st & Fuller Streets D Street & SR 193 E. 9th & Herold Streets Harrison & E. 11th Streets 8th & D Streets 6th & A Streets 3rd & F Streets 6 Route 202 0 1 1st & Saint Tropez Streets 0 17 1st & Fuller Streets 1 0 1st & L Streets 0 3 3rd & F Streets 0 0 6th & H Streets 3 2 8th & Q Streets 3 0 3rd & H Streets 0 0 3rd & Chambers Streets 1 2 3rd & L Streets 2 0 Lakeside & St. Andrews 1 0 3rd Street & Senior Center 0 0 0 0 6th & J Streets 0 0 1st & O Streets 3 0 6th & O Streets 0 0 1st & Chamber Streets 0 0 1st & I Streets 0 0 3rd & J Streets 0 0 6th & L Streets 1 1 Venture & Swallowview 2 0 Flightline Drive 0 0 Lakeside & Floradale 0 0 Aviation & Venture 17 2 Boardings Aligtings l Tota Bus Stop 1st & Mariner Streets 5th & N Streets Rose Bouquet & DW Sun City Lane & DW 1st & O Streets 1st Street & Fuller Lane Safeway & SR 65 3rd & F Streets Route 102 0 2 Harrison & E. 11th Streets 0 0 1st & R Streets 0 8 E. 9th & Herold Streets 0 0 3rd & F Streets 0 0 D & 1st Streets 0 00 East Ave. & E. 8th Sreet 13 6th & F Streets 1 0 6th & A Streets 0 1 6th & D Streets 0 2 E 12th St. & East Ave. 3 0 1st & H Streets 0 3 D St. & SR 193 8 0 SR 193 & B Street 20 0 8th & D Streets 13 0 D St. & SR 193 45 31 Boardings Aligtings l Tota TABLE 27: Lincoln Transit Average Weekday Bus Stop Activity East Ave. & E. 8th St. E. 9th & Herold Streets D Street & SR 193 6th & D Streets 6th & A Streets Harrison & E. 11th StreetsE. 12th St. & East Ave. 7th & C Streets 0 2 8th & B Streets 2nd & L Streets 6th & L Streets 3rd & F Streets 7th & H Streets 1st & O Streets 1st & R Streets 1st & Fuller Streets Bus Stop Note: On-board counts completed by Moore & Associates in October 2002 and LSC March 2003.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 41

Lincoln Transit operated a total of 4,456 vehicle service hours in Fiscal Year 2001-02, a significant increase in comparison to the 1,570 vehicle service hours operated in Fiscal Year 1998-99. This represents a total increase of 183 percent over the four-year period, and an average annual growth of 29.7 percent. A total of 50,129 vehicle service miles was provided in Fiscal Year 2001-02, in comparison to 18,962 vehicle service miles operated in Fiscal Year 1998-99. The total growth in vehicle service miles over the period amounted to 164 percent, and average growth was 27.5 percent annually.

Lincoln Transit Capital Assets

Vehicle Fleet

Lincoln Transit’s fleet currently consists of five vehicles, as shown in Table 28. The older 1985 Bluebird bus seats 34 ambulatory passengers, and it is not wheelchair-accessible. The 1997 Ford Aerotech minibus seats 22 ambulatory passengers and has two wheelchair securement positions; this vehicle is in need of an immediate overhaul or replacement. The 2000 Thomas seats 42 ambulatory passengers and has two wheelchair securement positions, and the 2002 Bluebird seats 37 ambulatory passengers and has two wheelchair securement positions. Lincoln Transit typically schedules two buses on the fixed-route system and one on the Dial-A-Ride service.

TABLE 28: Lincoln Transit Vehicle Fleet

Number of Anticipated Seating Wheelchair Replacement Year Make/ Model Mileage Capacity Positions Year (1)

1985 Bluebird 213,114 30 0 2004

1997 Ford Aerotech 107,504 22 2 2005

2000 Thomas 43,230 42 2 2010

2002 Bluebird 2,941 37 2 2012

Note 1: This replacement schedule assumes an 8- year expected vehicle life for minibuses and 10- year for large buses. Source: City of Lincoln, April 2003

Passenger Amenities

Lincoln Transit currently has six passenger bus shelters in its service area, as follows:

Third and F Streets Twelfth Street and East Avenue Del Webb Boulevard and Rose Bouquet The Senior complex on Third Street Del Webb Boulevard and Sun City Boulevard Sixth and F Streets

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 42 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Due to the rapid growth in Lincoln’s population, shelters and bus stops are planned throughout the city. Shelters are planned at the following sites:

First and O Streets First and Fuller Streets Lincoln Hill (near the new lodge) Sterling Boulevard

The bus terminus located at Third and F Street bus stop is planned for enhancement in 2004.

Facilities

The transit service does not have any dedicated bus facilities. The Department of Public Works provides office facilities for the transit supervisor, and maintenance is performed at the same facility that maintains other City vehicles. Lincoln Transit’s Corporation Yard is old and too small for their fleet, so currently the buses are parked at the airport. Property for a new yard location was recently purchased, and Lincoln Transit expects to relocate in the next two years. The new location at 2100 Flightline Boulevard will include enough parking for all the buses as well as space for the administrative offices.

Lincoln Transit Financial Analysis

Revenue

The sources of revenue for Lincoln Transit for Fiscal Years 1998-99 through 2001-02 are presented in Table 29. TDA funds provide the major revenue source, with LTF funds accounting for over half of the total revenue in each year for which detailed data is available. Farebox revenues have varied over the years, with Fiscal Year 2001-02 showing the greatest amount ($36,255, or 9.1 percent to total funding).

Expenses and Cost Allocation Model

The expenditures required to operate Lincoln Transit service in Fiscal Year 2001-2002 are summarized in Table 30. Operating expenses comprised 54.2 percent of the budget, and other personnel expenses comprised the remaining 45.8 percent. The total operating cost for the year was $316,918.

A useful tool in analyzing transit options is a cost allocation model of the transit organization’s operations. In this analysis, also presented in Table 30, each cost item is assigned to one of the service variables, including number of peak vehicles, vehicle service hours, vehicle service miles, and fixed costs. As presented in the table, fixed costs are estimated at $120,175. The cost factor per vehicle service hour is estimated to total $32.73, the cost factor per vehicle service mile is estimated at $0.72, and the cost factor per peak vehicle is estimated at $16,759.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 43

TABLE 29: Lincoln Transit Revenues, FY 1998-99 to FY 2001-02

Percentage Annual of Annual Revenue Sources Revenues Revenues

FY 1998-99 Farebox Revenues $20,842 12.9% TDA (LTF) $85,653 53.1% TDA (STA) $10,871 6.7% Other Revenues (1) $43,934 27.2% Total $161,300 100%

FY 1999-00 Farebox Revenues $23,582 24.5% Other Operating Revenues $2,774 2.9% TDA (LTF) $58,274 60.6% TDA (STA) $11,490 12.0% Total $96,120 100%

FY 2000-01 Farebox Revenues $24,904 6.0% Other Operating Revenues $5,244 1.3% TDA (LTF) $320,171 77.2% TDA (STA) $31,423 7.6% Other State Revenues $32,892 7.9% Total $414,633 100%

FY 2001-02 Farebox Revenues $36,255 9.1% Other Operating Revenue $605 0.2% TDA (LTF) $249,766 62.5% TDA (STA) $29,767 7.4% Other State Revenues $83,465 20.9% Total $399,858 100%

FY 2002-03 (Estimated) Farebox Revenues $20,000 4.2% Miscellaneous Revenues $6,000 1.2% TDA $429,923 89.4% Charter $25,000 5.2% Total $480,923 100%

Note 1: Complete itemized revenue data not available.

Sources: City of Lincoln, and State of California Transit Operators and Non- Transit Claimants Annual Reports.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 44 Short Range Transit Plan Update

TABLE 30: Lincoln Transit Operating Expenditures and Cost Model, FY 2001-02

Cost Factor Vehicle Peak Vehicle Ser v i c e Annual Expenses Expense Percent Fi x ed Cost s Vehicle Ser v i c e H o u r Mile

Expenses - Personnel Payroll - Drivers and Supervisors $112,433 29.7% – – $112,433 – Retirement $6,457 1.7% – – $6,457 – Workers Comp $2,449 0.6% – – $2,449 – Health/ Life Insurance $15,455 4.1% – – $15,455 – Unemployment $538 0.1% – – $538 – FICA $7,879 2.1% – – $7,879 – Personnel Subtotal $145,210 38.4% $0 $0 $145,210 $0

Expenses - Operations Transit Office Expense $365 0.1% $365 – – – Membership/ Dues $225 0.1% $225 – – – Travel/ Conf/ Meeting $343 0.1% $343 – – – Finance Dept. $8,769 2.3% $8,769 – – – Special Dept Ex. $2,191 0.6% $2,191 – – – HR Charges $4,459 1.2% $4,459 – – – City Manager $4,287 1.1% $4,287 – – – City Council $1,587 0.4% $1,587 – – – Admin Svc. Charges $2,400 0.6% $2,400 – – – Central Service $363 0.1% $363 – – – Utilities $807 0.2% $807 – – – Vehicle Lease Expense $35,646 9.4% – $35,646 – – Supplies $2,777 0.7% $2,777 – – – Professional Services(City $111,623 29.5% $111,623 – – – Manager)/ Consulting Vehicle Insurance & Inspection $14,631 3.9% – $14,631 – – Petroleum Products $15,752 4.2% – – – $15,752 Legal $1,347 0.4% $1,347 – – – Communications $485 0.1% $485 – – – Transit Shop Charges $20,500 5.4% – – – $20,500 Training $650 0.2% – – $650 – Yard Operations $3,944 1.0% $3,944 – – – Operations Subtotal $233,150 61.6% $145,971 $50,277 $650 $36,252

Total Expenses $378,360 100% $145,971 $50,277 $145,860 $36,252

FY 2001- 02 Service Variable Quantities – 3 4,457 50,129

FY 2001- 02 Cost Factors $145,971 $16,759 $32.73 $0.72

Sources: Lincoln Transit Financial Summary, and LSC.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 45

Lincoln Transit Fiscal Years 1997-98 to 2001-02 Performance Analysis

To gain insight into the efficiency and effectiveness of Lincoln Transit services, it is useful to conduct an analysis of ridership and operating data. Ridership and operating statistics for the past five fiscal years were reviewed to identify operating characteristics, fares, and operating costs. Fares were then subtracted from costs to identify the average subsidy required. Finally, data were used to evaluate a number of productivity and service measures.

Table 31 presents overall operating and performance data for Lincoln Transit for the past five fiscal years. As presented in the table and in Figure 25, annual ridership increased steadily through Fiscal Year 1999-2000, but dropped precipitously in Fiscal Year 2000-01. Ridership recovered slightly in Fiscal Year 2001-02, and Lincoln Transit staff expects ridership to improve in Fiscal Year 2002-03 as area riders adjust to the new routes implemented in Fiscal Year 2000- 01.

The systemwide operating cost in Fiscal Year 2001-02 was $378,360 and the systemwide farebox revenues totaled $36,255. The resulting annual operating subsidy was $342,105. Figure 26 presents annual operating subsidy over the past five years. As shown, the annual operating subsidy increased significantly between Fiscal Years 1999-2000 and 2000-01, and actually decreased between Fiscal Years 2000-01 and 2001-02.

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 and in Figure 27 below, the productivity of the system peaked in Fiscal Year 1999-2000, but it declined steadily in Fiscal Year 2000-01. The productivity recovered slightly in Fiscal Year 2001-02, although it still remains significantly below the peak achieved in Fiscal Year 1999-2000.

When the annual operating subsidy is divided by the number of annual 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). This data is presented in Figure 28 above. The systemwide operating subsidy per one-way passenger-trip increased significantly in Fiscal Year 2000-01 to $17.94, although it decreased in Fiscal Year 2001-02 to $13.22.

The financial efficiency of a system can be measured by the operating farebox recovery ratio, which is illustrated in the table and compared over the past five years in Figure 29 below. The farebox recovery ratio is particularly important as a measurement for meeting the mandated minimum of 10 percent required for TDA funding. The systemwide farebox recovery ratio has declined since Fiscal Year 1997-98. In Fiscal Year 2001-02, the operating farebox recovery ratio was 9.6 percent, which is higher than the low of 7.2 percent achieved in Fiscal Year 2000-01.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 46 Short Range Transit Plan Update

5.8 0.52 9.6% 4,457 $1.40 4.7 0.42 7.2% 3,803 $1.39 $19.33 $14.62 $17.94 $13.22 $346,697 $378,360 23.4 1.41 1,603 14.2% $0.63 $4.44 $3.81 Fiscal Year 19.6 1.62 1,570 15.1% $0.68 $4.50 $3.82 21.5 1.72 1,388 18.4% $0.75 29,80417,362 30,738 18,962 37,448 26,525 17,936 43,021 25,877 50,129 $87.78 $88.06 $103.61 $91.17 $84.90 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 $22,367$44,595 $20,842 $50,601 $23,582 $64,075 $24,904 $133,756 $36,255 $145,971 $77,248 $87,652 $102,008 $212,941 $232,389 $99,476 $117,411 $142,501 $321,793 $342,105 $121,843 $138,253 $166,083 (1) (1) (1) (1) (2) (1) Vehicle Service Miles One-Way Passenger-Trips Total Operating Subsidy Passengers per VSH Vehicle Service Hours Farebox Revenues Estimated Operating Cost Estimated Fixed Cost Total Operating Cost Passenger-Trips per VSM Farebox Recovery Ratio Average Passenger Fare Operating Subsidy per Passenger-Trip $3.34 Operating Cost per VSH Operating Cost per Passenger-Trip $4.09 TABLE 31: Lincoln Transit Systemwide Performance Analysis Operating Characteristics Line Item Performance Indicators Note 1: Information from State Controller Reports is italicized. Note 2: Fixed costs prior to FY 1998-99 are estimated using percentage of total cost (36.6 percent). Sources: City of Lincoln Financial Audit reports and State California Transit Operators Non-Transit Claimants Annual Reports.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 47

FIGURE 25: Lincoln Transit Annual Ridership Fiscal Years 1997-98 to 2001-02

1997-98 29,804

1998-99 30,738

1999-00 37,448 Fiscal Year

2000-01 17,936

2001-02 25,877

0 25,000 50,000 75,000 Annual One-Way Passenger-Trips

FIGURE 26: Lincoln Transit Annual Operating Subsidy Fiscal Years 1997-98 to 2001-02

1997-98 $99,476

1998-99 $117,411

1999-00 $142,501 Fiscal Year

2000-01 $321,793

2001-02 $342,105

$0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 Annual Operating Subsidy

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 48 Short Range Transit Plan Update

FI GURE 27: Lincoln Transit Average Productivity Fiscal Years 1997-98 to 2001-02

1997- 98 21.5

1998- 99 19.6

1999- 00 23.4 Fiscal Year Fiscal 2000- 01 4.7

2001- 02 5.8

0 5 10 15 20 25 Average One-Way Passenger-Trips per Vehicle Service Hour

FI GURE 28: Lincoln Transit Subsidy Per Passenger-Trip Fiscal Years 1997-98 to 2001-02

1997- 98 $3.34

1998- 99 $3.82

1999- 00 $3.81 Fiscal Year Fiscal 2000- 01 $17.94

2001- 02 $13.22

$0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00 Annual Operating Subsidy per One-Way Passenger-Trip

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 49

FI GURE 29: Lincoln Transit Farebox Recovery Ratio Fiscal Years 1997-98 to 2001-02

1997- 98 18.4%

1998- 99 15.1%

1999- 00 14.2% Fiscal Year Fiscal 2000- 01 7.2%

2001- 02 9.6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Annual Operating Farebox Recovery Ratio

Strengths and Weaknesses of Existing Service

The primary strength of the current Lincoln Transit service is that it offers transportation service for school children living within the city limits (school bus transportation is currently only offered to students living outside of the city limits). Another strength is the Lincoln Transit Dial- A-Ride service, which serves the elderly and disabled populations within Lincoln. The following are among the weaknesses of the existing service:

Transit services are not well-marketed.

In order to provide broad coverage, the Lincoln Transit routes have long travel times, causing some passengers to ride long periods of time even when traveling relatively short distances.

The system does not operate on regular headways (i.e., the bus does not pass by a given point at a fixed interval of time).

Because the service is focused on school children, service that is particularly useful for the general public is somewhat limited.

The system is operating below the 10 percent farebox recovery ratio mandated under the TDA.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 50 Short Range Transit Plan Update

ROSEVILLE TRANSIT

Roseville Transit began operations in the late 1970s as a contract-operated demand-response system. Service now includes a fixed-route system and Sacramento commuter service, as well as demand-response services. The services are operated for the City of Roseville by a private contractor (currently MV Transportation, Inc.). The fixed-route and demand-response services are available only within city limits; the commuter service operates between Roseville and downtown Sacramento. Roseville Transit provides connections with PCT and Sacramento RT at various points throughout Roseville.

Roseville Transit Fixed-Route Service

The fixed-route service comprises nine routes (four of which also have reverse loops) serving three major hubs: the Sierra Gardens Transfer Point on Sierra Gardens Drive near North Sunrise Avenue; the Downtown Roseville Transfer Point at Washington Boulevard and Vernon Street near City Hall; and the Galleria Transfer Point at the Roseville Galleria Mall. The Sacramento RT transfer point at Riverside Avenue / Auburn Boulevard and Whyte Avenue is another important passenger activity center. Transfers are also available at the Heritage Oaks Transfer Point at the corner of Woodcreek Oaks and Junction Boulevards.

Currently, the service operates Monday through Friday from 6:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M.. Roseville has also introduced Saturday and Sunday service from 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Figure 13 above illustrates Roseville Transit’s fixed-routes. The routes are as follows:

Route A and Route B are interlined, with Route A departing the Galleria Transfer Point every hour on the hour, and route B departing approximately half past the hour. Route A serves Sutter Roseville Medical Center in both directions, and loops around the Sierra Gardens Transfer Point. Route B departs the Galleria Transfer Point via Galleria Boulevard and travels along Atlantic Street to the Downtown Roseville Transfer Point, then back to the Galleria Transfer Point.

Route C is a bi-directional service, departing clockwise from the Sierra Gardens Transfer Point on the hour and counter-clockwise on the half hour. The route travels along Douglas Boulevard, Rocky Ridge Drive, McLaren Drive, Champion Oaks Drive, South Cirby Way, Cirby Way, Sunrise Avenue, and Francis Drive.

Route D is also a bidirectional service, with the Roseville Downtown Transfer Point serving as its route terminus. On the hour, Route D travels counter-clockwise down Washington Boulevard and onto Main Street, heads north on Foothills Boulevard, west on McAnally Drive, south on Woodcreek Oaks Boulevard, east on Junction Boulevard back to Washington Boulevard and City Hall. The clockwise trip is operated on the half hour.

Route E departs the Sierra Gardens Transfer Point at 26 and 56 minutes after the hour. The bus travels west on Douglas Boulevard, south on Sierra College Boulevard, east on Eureka Way back to Douglas Boulevard and the Sierra Gardens Transfer Point.

Route J is another bi-directional route departing from the Sierra Gardens Transfer Point in a counterclockwise direction at 46 minutes after the hour and a clockwise direction at 16

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 51

minutes after the hour. Route J stops at the Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point, Roller King, Johnson Pool, the Downtown Roseville Transfer Point, the library, Saugstad Park, and Roseville Square.

Route K, also a bi-directional service, departing the Sierra Gardens Transfer Point at 22 minutes after the hour in a counterclockwise direction, traveling on Santa Clara Drive to Francis Drive, along Sunrise Avenue and onto Cirby Way, down Riverside to the Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point, then up Riverside Avenue to Vernon Street, and along Estates Drive, Harding Boulevard, Lead Hill Boulevard and North Sunrise Avenue.

Route M is the longest route and travels from Timber Creek Lodge to the Galleria Transfer Point and back again. The route departs on the hour and returns 55 minutes after the hour. Between Timber Lodge and the Galleria Transfer Point, Route M serves Mahany Park, Woodcreek High School, the Heritage Oaks Transfer Point, Foothills and Washington Boulevards, and Hallisey Drive.

Route R travels between the Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point and PRIDE Industries, also serving Vernon Street, Vineyard Road, Foothills/Junction Shopping Center, NEC, Albertson’s Drive, Pasco Scientific, HP and Pleasant Grove Boulevard. The route departs the Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point at 7:23 A.M. and 8:05 A.M., and in the afternoon at 3:53 and 4:35 P.M., taking forty minutes to make the loop.

Roseville Dial-A-Ride Service

Roseville Transit is a curb-to-curb, demand responsive service open to the general public, and it operates within the city limits. Roseville Transit serves Roseville’s ADA complementary paratransit service, as well. School-age children are restricted from using the service for transportation to and from school or school-sponsored activities. No other restrictions apply, and all vehicles are wheelchair-lift-equipped. Currently, approximately 75 percent of the trips on Roseville Dial-A-Ride are provided to senior and/or disabled passengers.

Fares are $3.75 for the general public, and $1.75 for elderly persons and persons with disabilities (with a Roseville Transit photo identification card). Up to two children aged five and under can ride free when accompanied by a full-fare paying adult. For those making an appointment, reservations are required two hours in advance with a maximum in-vehicle standard of one hour. Reservations can be made up to two weeks in advance, and standing reservations for a regular pick-up can be made, as well. Hours of operation are Monday through Friday, 6:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M.; Saturday and Sundays 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.

Typically, Roseville Dial-A-Ride utilizes six vehicles during peak periods and five vehicles during most other periods. On Saturdays, Roseville Dial-A-Ride operates four vehicles, and three vehicles on Sundays.

Roseville Commuter Service

Roseville Transit provides six commuter routes into downtown Sacramento Monday through Friday during the peak commuter hours. Each of the six routes has a morning run and afternoon run, which begin and end in Roseville. Connections with Yolobus are also available at 9th and K

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 52 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Streets for continued travel to the Sacramento International Airport. The Roseville Commuter service operates seven over-the-road 45-passenger coaches, with a peak of four vehicles in service at one time. Fares for this service are $2.50 per trip for Roseville residents, and $3.50 for non-residents. Twenty-ride passes are available for $50.00 for residents and $70.00 for non- residents. Monthly passes are available for $90.00 for residents and $125.00 for non-residents. A combination commuter/fixed-route pass is available for $120.00 for the general public and $105.00 for seniors or disabled persons.

Roseville Transit Transfers

Fixed-route transfers from one Roseville Transit route to another are free. Once a passenger has paid a fare upon boarding a bus, he or she may request a transfer, which is valid for one hour and one transfer. The City of Roseville also has a transfer agreement with PCT, where Roseville Transit transfers are good on PCT services and vice versa. The transfers are good for one boarding, and are accepted at the following locations: Louis Lane / Orlando Avenue and at the Galleria. Neither agency reimburses the other for the transfers.

The City of Roseville and Sacramento RT have a transfer agreement for both the Roseville fixed- route service and the commuter service. The city accepts RT transfers to the fixed-route service at Louis Lane / Orlando Avenue, and RT accepts transfers from the Roseville commuter service onto its fixed-route and light-rail services within the central city area of Sacramento. These transfers are valid for 90 minutes after the scheduled arrival time of the bus on which the transfer is issued. Reimbursement to each agency is made by formula, based on the number of transfers used on each system and the average annual per-passenger fare per fiscal year.

Roseville Transit Ridership

Ridership statistics are supplied through monthly management reports developed by the contractor. Ridership statistics are discussed below.

Annual Ridership

Annual ridership for the past five fiscal years (1997-98 through 2001-02) by service is depicted in Table 32. As indicated, total ridership on all services increased from 275,547 one-way passenger-trips in Fiscal Year 1997-98 to 347,243 in Fiscal Year 2001-02, for a total increase of 26 percent. By service, ridership increased 38 percent on the fixed-route service, decreased 18 percent on the Dial-A-Ride service and increased 56 percent on the commuter service.

Fixed-route service has grown from a 52 percent share of the total ridership in Fiscal Year 1997- 98 to a 57 percent share in Fiscal Year 2001-02. The commuter service provided 20 percent of the ridership in Fiscal Year 1997-98 and 25 percent in Fiscal Year 2001-02. Roseville Dial-A- Ride accounted for 28 percent of the total in Fiscal Year 1997-98, but only 18 percent in Fiscal Year 2001-02.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 53

TABLE 32: Roseville Transit Annual Ridership by Service FY 1997-98 to FY 2001-02

Fixed Route Dial-A-Ride Commuter Fiscal Year Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Systemw ide

1997- 98 143,334 52% 76,060 28% 56,153 20% 275,547

1998- 99 148,268 53% 72,816 26% 60,859 22% 281,943

1999- 00 151,214 50% 78,349 26% 69,877 23% 299,440

2000- 01 153,696 50% 69,934 23% 80,799 27% 304,429

2001- 02 197,202 57% 62,410 18% 87,631 25% 347,243

5- Year Change 37.6% - 17.9% 56.1% 26.0%

Source: Roseville Transit, June 2003 Monthly Management Reports.

Monthly Ridership on All Services

Total ridership by month for each of the three services in Fiscal Year 2001-02 is presented in Table 33. Ridership tends to be relatively stable throughout the year, with total system ridership by month varying from a low of 24,849 trips (7.2 percent of the annual total) in December, 2001, to a high of 31,511 trips (9.1 percent of the annual total) in July, 2001.

Monthly Fixed-Route Ridership

Table 34 presents total fixed-route ridership by route. Route J has the highest ridership of any individual route (31,302 trips, or 18.0 percent of total). Routes J, J-Reverse, K and K-Reverse comprise the “core” services, and provide 45.8 percent of the annual fixed-route ridership; a total of 79,636 one-way passenger-trips were provided on these core routes. Route M provided the fewest trips, with 4.5 percent of the annual total.

Daily Ridership

Using daily ridership counts for June 2002, average daily ridership was determined for each service and for each day of the week. As shown in Table 35, weekday ridership averaged 740 one-way trips on the fixed-route service, 166 on Dial-A-Ride and 342 Sacramento commuter trips. Thus, the total system weekday ridership averaged 1,249 one-way passenger-trips. Total ridership was spread fairly evenly across weekdays, with Friday experiencing the lowest ridership and Tuesday the highest. Dial-A-Ride service operates on weekends as well, and averaged 79 riders on Saturdays and 76 on Sundays in June 2002.

Fixed-Route Boardings by Hour

Table 36 presents fixed-route passenger boardings by hour for each route, based on the boarding and alighting data collected in October 2002 and March 2003. For all routes combined, the period from Noon to 3:00 P.M. has the highest ridership. Almost 30 percent of daily ridership was recorded during this three-hour period.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 54 Short Range Transit Plan Update

9.1% 9.1% 7.9% 9.1% 7.8% 7.2% 8.2% 7.8% 8.3% 8.6% 8.7% 8.2% Percent Total 100% 31,511 31,604 27,559 31,499 27,110 24,849 28,391 27,232 28,904 29,994 30,194 28,396 Number 25.2% Commuter 18.0% RADAR 56.8% Fixed Route 16,595 8.4% 6,045 9.7% 8,859 10.1% 17,640 8.9% 4,790 7.7% 7,764 8.9% 17,753 9.0% 6,270 10.0% 7,581 8.7% 16,947 8.6% 4,794 7.7% 7,163 8.2% 16,303 8.3% 4,521 7.2% 6,408 7.3% 17,484 8.9% 5,033 8.1% 7,477 8.5% 17,122 8.7% 4,215 6.8% 7,059 8.1% 14,971 7.6% 5,439 8.7% 7,149 8.2% 18,801 9.5% 5,590 9.0% 7,120 8.1% 14,66013,204 7.4% 6.7% 5,504 5,395 8.8% 8.6% 6,946 6,250 7.9% 7.1% Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 197,202 100% 62,410 100% 87,631 100% 347,243 100% Percent TABLE 33: Roseville Transit Monthly Ridership by Service, FY 2001-2002 July 2001 August September October November December January 2002February 15,722 8.0% 4,814 7.7% 7,855 9.0% March April May June Total Month Source: Roseville Transit, June 2003 Monthly Management Reports.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 55

9.8% 7.0% 6.3% 5.6% 9.0% 9.4% 9.7% 8.7% 7.8% 6.5% 10.0% 10.1% Percent Total 9,760 100% 17,484 17,640 17,123 12,212 10,967 15,722 16,303 16,947 15,072 13,529 11,298 Route A B C C-Rev D E J J-Rev K K-Rev M R-AM R-PM 425 617 531 729 2,256 909 2,366 1,209 918 1,319 428 219 286 489 465 482 652 2,325 1,156 2,696 1,408 1,231 1,541 517 237 330 9,984 9,421 7,230 8,823 27,056 15,498 31,302 16,376 13,013 18,945 7,846 4,499 4,064 174,057 100% 1,258 965 770 912 2,229 1,866 2,970 1,355 1,371 2,116 918 495 415 1,165 993 698 786 2,576 1,650 2,906 1,425 1,019 1,922 968 455 384 1,450 954 642 774 2,540 1,525 2,734 1,593 1,359 1,860 838 440 414 1,268 1,026 722 903 2,083 1,612 3,110 1,681 1,232 1,917 993 471 466 Percent 5.7% 5.4% 4.2% 5.1% 15.5% 8.9% 18.0% 9.4% 7.5% 10.9% 4.5% 2.6% 2.3% TABLE 34: Roseville Transit Monthly Fixed-Route Ridership by Route, FY 2001-02 May June Total NovemberDecember 447 582 417 529 565 528 477 2,081 498 930 1,664 1,978 751 991 1,821 851 1,069 1,126 758 304 1,034 272 410 342 210 92 January 2002 814February 1,102March 637 1,140 1,098 839 678 2,503 1,432 786 2,757 2,351 1,487 1,578 1,162 2,871 1,686 1,406 543 1,126 1,739 303 786 457 372 372 April Month July 2001August 718September 559 503October 393 806 495 2,678 561 1,182 2,911 610 1,549 1,770 1,134 907 1,499 2,182 738 1,203 409 852 386 1,186 541 346 252 Source: City of Roseville.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 56 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Total Percent of Total 79 50.8% 76 49.2% 155 100% 1,249 Number Total Percent of No service No service Commuter No service 342 Number Total Percent of Dial-A-Ride 79 50.8% 76 49.2% 155 100% 166 Number Total Percent of No service No service Fixed Route 720 19.4% 141 17.0% 217 12.7% 1,078 17.3% 844 22.8%788 21.3% 177 21.2% 173 20.7% 399 23.3% 344 1,419 20.1% 22.7% 1,304 20.9% 626 16.9% 163 19.6% 378 22.1% 1,167 18.7% 724 19.5% 179 21.5% 374 21.8% 1,276 20.4% 3,701 100% 832 100% 1,710 100% 6,244 100% Number Average 740 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Total Saturday Sunday Weekend Total No service TABLE 35: Roseville Transit Average Daily Ridership by Day of Week for June 2002 Weekday Weekend Day of Week Source: MV Transportation, Inc., Monthly Management Reports.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 57

8.9% 2.8% 3.9% 7.8% 7.0% 6.5% 9.5% 3.9% 4.2% 9.0% 0.3% 3.2% 10.3% 11.5% 11.3% 2 74 64 20 28 56 83 50 81 47 68 28 30 65 23 100% 1 -- 0 -- -- 1 -- -- 0 7 5 90 5 4 1 0-- 9 0 169-- 3 5 7 017 0 5 6 9-- 3 3 5 0-- 6 2 7 00 3 4 4 0-- 6 9 9 2------0 6 0-- 108 23 40 12133 2 0 3-- 120 31 5-- 13113 82 72 73 41 17 719 100% 11.4% 10.0% 10.2% 5.7% 2.4% J Reverse K K Reverse M R Total Percent 7 3 1 1 2 1 8 6 3 4 1 9 5 J 10 16 77 10.7% Route D Reverse E C Reverse D 00524 00067 254539 4000331 302046 2212002 3 16 5 10 6422401 25515193 6221145 84146113 1201190 1405010 3200123 -- -- 1 20 1 0 3 ------0 ABC 68 60 17 42 29 94 47 11 10 10 9.5% 8.3% 2.4% 5.8% 4.0% 13.1% 6.5% Total TABLE 36: Roseville Transit Boardings by Hour of Day 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM Percent 4:00 PM 3:00 PM 2:00 PM 1:00 PM 12:00 PM 11:00 AM 10:00 AM 9:00 AM 8:00 AM Hour Beginning 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 7:00 AM Source: October 2002 and March 2003 boarding/alighting surveys.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 58 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Passenger Activity by Stop

Boarding and alighting data was collected on each route in October 2002 and June 2003 for all Roseville Transit routes. The data are summarized in Appendix C (see Tables C-4A through C- 4Z). The data was averaged to provide the total average daily boardings, alightings, and total passenger activity at each stop. The most active stops on each route and total passenger activity by route are presented in Table 37. The data indicates that the single most active Roseville Transit bus stop is the City Hall Transfer Point, with an average daily count of 103 passenger boardings and 103 passenger alightings. Other major bus stops include the Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point, the Sierra Gardens Transfer Point, the Galleria Transfer Point, the Santa Clara / Placer Village bus stop and the Woodcreek High School bus stop.

The following route segments generated low or no boardings/alightings:

Route A – along the Sunrise Avenue and Roseville Parkway corridors.

Route B – along the Atlantic Street corridor.

Route C and C-Reverse – along the Santa Clara Drive, Douglas Boulevard and Sunrise Avenue corridors.

Route D – along the Junction Boulevard and Washington Boulevard corridors.

Route E – along the Douglas Boulevard corridor.

Route J and J-Reverse – along the Santa Clara Drive, Riverside Avenue and Douglas Boulevard corridors.

Route K and K-Reverse – on the Sunrise Avenue, Harding Boulevard, Estates Drive and Folsom Road route segment.

Route M – ridership on this route is relatively low along the entire route, since this route essentially serves as a feeder route to other routes serving the Galleria.

Route R – aside from the Pride Industries bus stop and the Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point, ridership along this route is very low.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 59

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 60 Short Range Transit Plan Update

TABLE 37: Roseville Transit Average Weekday Bus Stop Activity Average Weekday Passenger Route A Route B Route C Route C Reverse Route D Route D Reverse Route E Route J Route J Reverse Route K Route K Reverse Route M Route R Activity Bus Stop On Off On Off On Off On Off On Off On Off On Off On Off On Off On Off On Off On Off On Off Boardings Alightings Total

Transfer Centers

Galleria 24 30 24 21 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 18 15 N/A N/A 66 66 132

Sierra Gardens 16 13 N/A N/A 3 1 5 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 8 11 10 14 11 16 10 11 12 7 N/A N/A N/A N/A 75 75 150

City Hall N/A N/A 17 27 N/A N/A N/A N/A 9 3 10 10 N/A N/A 9 13 27 17 8 18 24 15 N/A N/A N/A N/A 104 103 207

Auburn/Whyte N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 23 17 20 16 16 13 15 22 N/A N/A 17 0 91 68 159

Bus Stops

Sutter Roseville Medical Center 7 6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 7613

Antelope Creek @ Creekside Ridge 0 2 4 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 448

S. Cirby @ Nighthawk Cir. N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 437

1900 S. Cirby @ Pepperwood N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 325

Foothills Blvd @ Junction N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 257

Woodcreek H.S. / Roseville Aquatics N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 1 22 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 23 2 25 Complex

Junction Blvd. @ Brickyard Ctr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 14 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 31417

Eureka Rd. @ Deer Valley Apts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 31013

Douglas Blvd. At Rocky Ridge Dr./Target N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10 4 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 10 4 14

720 Sunrise Av N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6 2 N/A N/A 1 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 729

Santa Clara @ Placer Village N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 2 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 0 1 1 10 1 1 4 0 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A 18 9 27

Sunrise @ Conroy N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0 N/A N/A 9 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11 0 11

Sunrise @ Cirby N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 3 0 2 4 1 0 5 N/A N/A N/A N/A 41115

Lean Hill @ N. Sunrise (Comp USA) 1 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 606

Juction Blvd @ Country Club N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 2 2 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 6 N/A N/A 2911

Foothill Blvd @ Pride Industries N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 14 01414

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 61

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 62 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Schedule Adherence

As part of the bus stop passenger activity surveys, the consultant also measured the on-time performance of the buses in comparison to the published schedule. The data are summarized in Appendix D (see Tables D-4A through D-4T). With the exception of peak traffic/ridership periods, Roseville Transit fixed-routes demonstrated good on-time performance. However, some routes and runs were significantly late, and, in some cases, early. As presented, the following conclusions can be made regarding the on-time performance of the Roseville Transit routes:

Although the surveyors were instructed to coordinate their watches with the driver’s watch, on occasion there appears to be inconsistencies in the manner in which the times were recorded on the survey sheets. For example, it is unlikely that a bus could be 7 minutes early at one stop and then be on-time at the next bus stop.

Early departures were recorded on at least one run on each route. Early departures were recorded at every bus stop along the Route e and J-Reverse services. In general, early departures are not tolerated by transit agencies, since it renders the schedule unreliable in the eyes of riders. Again, the reader should be cautioned that the surveyors may have incorrectly recorded departures times. Nonetheless, Roseville Transit officials should consider implementing a “no early departures” training campaign to ensure early departures do not become a recurring problem.

On average, the schedule adherence times recorded on C-Reverse service was the best of all the Roseville Transit routes (the least variation between early and late departures). The greatest variation was recorded on Routes J and K.

Commuter routes 1, 4 and 5 departed the Cirby/Vernon bus stop very late (as much as 32 minutes late). Route 1 was able to regain schedule adherence by the time the bus arrive in Sacramento, although Routes 4 and 5 were not able to make up the time. This suggests that operations supervision staff could do a better job of ensuring that the routes depart their initial bus stop on-time.

Commuter Boardings by Run

Table 38 presents commuter service boardings by run by month from January 2002 through June 2002. The largest average daily boardings (40 boardings) were recorded on the morning run of Route 4 (6:10 A.M. departure from Orlando and Cirby). January had the largest number of total boardings during this six month period.

Roseville Transit Staffing

The City of Roseville employs one two-third Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Transportation Manager, an FTE Administrative Assistant, a two-third FTE Transportation Technician, and a two-third FTE Administrative Clerk. In addition to City staff, MV Transportation, Inc. employs

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 63

349 Total 7,051 7,749 7,272 7,454 7,137 6,397 7,841 100% 43,629 169 3,401 3,723 3,524 3,627 3,472 3,093 3,829 48.5% 21,145 Subtotal Afternoon Runs 123456 31 32 36 25 33 12 612 655 755 467 713 199 731 704 801 499 715 273 649 675 751 513 693 244 711 685 750 556 701 224 606 668 759 532 670 237 573 575 678 477 560 230 663 760 765 545 796 300 8.9% 9.3% 10.3% 7.1% 9.5% 3.4% 3,896 4,047 4,508 3,076 4,155 1,463 to June 2002 y 180 3747 3,650 4,026 3,827 3,665 3,304 4,012 51.5% 22,484 Subtotal Run for Januar y Morning Runs 123456 611 652 590 915 761 497 529 549 554 845 739 434 596 568 561 825 688 427 599 632 606 806 713 471 647 721 643 858 697 446 8.2% 8.5% 7.9% 11.3% 9.6% 6.1% 3,559 3,695 3,440 4,938 4,191 2,661 Total Percent of Avg. Daily 28 30 28 40 34 21 Avg. Monthly 593 616 573 823 699 444 TABLE 38: Roseville Transit Commuter Ridership b Total June May April March February 577 573 486 689 593 386 January Route Source: Roseville Transit

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 64 Short Range Transit Plan Update

35 FTE drivers to operate Roseville Transit services, as well as two FTE dispatchers and one FTE dispatch manager. All vehicle maintenance is provided by City of Roseville staff at the City Corporation Yard.

Roseville Transit Hours and Miles of Service

Monthly vehicle service hours by service category for Fiscal Year 2001-02 are presented in Table 39. The fixed-route service totaled 32,548 annual vehicle service hours, representing 56.4 percent of the total. This service level equates to double the service level provided in Fiscal Year 1998-99. Dial-A-Ride service operated 19,947 vehicle service hours, representing 34.5 percent of the systemwide total. The Dial-A-Ride service level increased only 17 percent in comparison to Fiscal Year 1998-99. The Sacramento commuter service operated 5,247 annual vehicle service hours, providing 9.1 percent of the systemwide total. This commuter service level represents a 45 percent service level increase in comparison to Fiscal Year 1998-99.

Table 40 presents similar data concerning vehicle service miles for Fiscal Year 2001-02. The fixed-route service, which operated 457,386 vehicle service miles, represented a similar percentage of the total (57.0 percent) as it did for vehicle service hours. The Dial-A-Ride service, which operated 248,270 vehicle service miles, represented a slightly smaller percentage of the total (31.0 percent) than it did regarding vehicle service hours. The commuter service operated 96,471 vehicle service miles.

Roseville Transit Capital Assets

Vehicle Fleet

The City currently provides the contract operator with a fleet of 34 regular service vehicles, and five non-revenue vehicles for administrative use. Service vehicles range in size from 15- passenger minibuses to 45-passenger over-the-road coaches, and many of the vehicles are CNG- powered. All service vehicles feature wheelchair lifts and at least one wheelchair securement position. Table 41 depicts the existing vehicle fleet as of June 2003. Roseville Transit maintains an appropriate ratio of back-up vehicles to insure system operations.

Passenger Amenities

Roseville Transit has 45 bus shelters located throughout the city. In addition, the City has a list of shelters to be built as they become needed. Signs at bus stops have the Roseville Transit logo and route number, but no schedule information is provided.

The City of Roseville currently has eight Park-and-Ride lots, with an additional lot planned within one mile of Douglas Boulevard. The location and capacity of existing Park-and-Ride facilities in Roseville are presented in Table 42.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 65

n/a 7.3% 9.6% 8.2% 8.7% 7.3% 9.7% 8.4% 8.8% 7.7% 9.0% 7.8% 9.4% 8.8% 8.5% 8.2% 8.9% 8.9% 8.8% 9.3% 8.7% 9.4% 8.6% 100% 100% 10.0% Percent Total 100% 100% 2 9 n/a 4,229 4,946 4,739 5,155 4,471 4,233 4,988 4,845 4,516 4,442 4,629 4,496 4,812 5,102 4,348 4,759 4,548 5,131 4,524 5,370 4,450 5,414 4,983 Number 100.0% 57,74 100.0% 51,38 9.1% 10.3% 7 2 Commuter n/a n/a 100.0% 5,24 100.0% 5,27 34.9% 34.5% 7 2 Dial-A-Ride n/a n/a 100% 19,94 100% 17,95 54.8% 56.4% 8 6 Fixed Route n/a n/a 2,734 8.4% 1,544 7.7% 461 8.8% 2,695 9.6% 1,772 9.9% 520 9.9% 2,701 9.6% 1,943 10.8% 511 9.7% 2,697 8.3% 1,689 8.5% 459 8.7% 2,508 7.7% 1,308 6.6% 412 7.9% 2,6272,395 9.3% 8.5% 1,835 10.2% 1,605 8.9% 485 472 9.2% 9.0% 2,353 7.2% 1,502 7.5% 377 7.2% 2,565 9.1% 1,396 7.8% 489 9.3% 2,571 9.1% 1,513 8.4% 465 8.8% 2,397 8.5% 1,517 8.4% 435 8.2% 2,484 8.8% 1,605 8.9% 427 8.1% 2,927 9.0% 1,981 9.9% 506 9.7% 2,908 8.9% 1,769 8.9% 454 8.6% 2,758 8.5% 1,599 8.0% 402 7.7% 2,518 7.7% 1,524 7.6% 401 7.6% 2,521 8.9% 1,642 9.1% 467 8.9% 2,513 7.7% 1,587 8.0% 397 7.6% 2,606 9.3% 1,404 7.8% 514 9.8% 2,927 9.0% 1,955 9.8% 488 9.3% 2,791 8.6% 1,734 8.7% 458 8.7% Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total 28,16 Total 32,54 Percent Percent TABLE 39: Roseville Transit Monthly Vehicle Service Hours by Service, FY 2001-02 & 2002-03 July 2001 Month July 2002 August August September September October October November November December December January 2003 2,604 9.2% 1,721 9.6% 487 9.2% January 2002 2,915 9.0% 1,755 8.8% 432 8.2% February February March March April April May May June June Source: Roseville Transit, July 2003

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 66 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Total 100% 100% n/a n/a 100% 734,201 100% 8 16.4% 12.0% Commuter n/a n/a 100% 120,37 4 30.6% 31.0% Dial-A-Ride n/a n/a 100% 248,270 100% 96,471 100% 802,127 100% 6 53.0% 57.0% Fixed Route n/a n/a 35,689 9.2% 19,294 8.6% 11,310 9.4% 66,293 9.0% 36,537 8.0% 21,776 8.8% 11,140 11.5% 69,453 8.7% 36,413 9.4% 19,366 8.6% 11,802 9.8% 67,581 9.2% 38,83836,886 8.5% 8.1% 21,418 19,684 8.6% 7.9% 11,037 11.4% 10,246 10.6% 71,293 66,816 8.9% 8.3% Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 457,38 389,009 100% 224,81 l l Tota Tota Percent Percent TABLE 40: Roseville Transit Monthly Revenue Miles by Service, FY 2001-02 & 2002-03 May June July 2002AugustSeptember 36,117OctoberNovember 33,054 37,193 9.3%DecemberJanuary 2003 8.5% 37,515 34,123 9.6%February 35,348 35,308March 20,154 9.6% 8.8%April 9.1% 9.1% 19,860 33,393 22,877 9.0% 8.8% 22,056 10.2% 20,356 34,856 8.6% 21,430 20,290 11,556 9.8% 9.1% 9.0% 9.5% 9.0% 11,182 10,382 19,024 9.6% 9.3% 8.6% 11,839 20,107 8.5% 9,812 11,103 10,307 67,827 9.8% 8.9% 8.2% 9.2% 8.6% 71,252 63,296 10,205 9.2% 9.7% 8.6% 71,410 10,880 8.5% 64,291 67,881 65,905 9.7% 9.0% 8.8% 9.2% 9.0% 62,622 65,843 8.5% 9.0% Month July 2001AugustSeptember 36,596OctoberNovember 31,565 42,966 8.0%DecemberJanuary 2002 6.9% 37,726 34,728 9.4%February 42,263 35,297March 19,992 8.2% 7.6%April 9.2% 7.7% 18,776May 42,128 21,172 8.1%June 7.6% 22,103 20,917 41,856 9.2% 8.5% 21,750 21,221 8.9% 5,964 8.4% 9.2% 8.8% 8.5% 5,751 18,857 7,744 6.2% 20,604 6,836 7.6% 4,547 6.0% 8.0% 9,739 4,378 8.3% 62,552 7.1% 4.7% 10.1% 4.5% 56,092 9,050 71,882 7.8% 10,039 7.0% 66,665 60,192 9.4% 9.0% 73,752 60,896 10.4% 8.3% 7.5% 9.2% 7.6% 70,035 72,499 8.7% 9.0% Source: Roseville Transit, July 2003.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 67

TABLE 41: Roseville Transit Vehicle Inventory

Type of Fuel service(s) Type Year of Year (Fixed-Route, Used ADA Wheel- Planned Manu- Manu- Model Dial-A-Ride, (Diesel, Access- Seating chair Replace- factured facturer Number Commuter) CNG) ible? Capacity Positions ment

1989 Gillig Phantom Fixed-Route Diesel Yes 28 2 2007 1989 Gillig Phantom Fixed-Route Diesel Yes 28 2 2007 1989 Gillig Phantom Fixed-Route Diesel Yes 28 2 2007 2001 Gillig Phantom Fixed-Route Diesel Yes 29 2 2013 2001 Gillig Phantom Fixed-Route Diesel Yes 29 2 2013 2001 Gillig Phantom Fixed-Route Diesel Yes 29 2 2013 2001 Gillig Phantom Fixed-Route Diesel Yes 29 2 2013 2001 Orion V Fixed-Route CNG Yes 29 2 2013 2001 Orion V Fixed-Route CNG Yes 29 2 2013 2003 Orion V Fixed-Route CNG Yes 29 2 2015 2003 Orion V Fixed-Route CNG Yes 29 2 2015 2003 Orion V Fixed-Route CNG Yes 29 2 2015 2003 Orion V Fixed-Route CNG Yes 29 2 2015 2003 Orion V Fixed-Route CNG Yes 29 2 2015 2003 Orion V Fixed-Route CNG Yes 29 2 2015 1986 Neoplan Metroliner Commuter Diesel Yes 45 1 2005 2000 Gillig Phantom Commuter Diesel Yes 45 2 2012 2000 Gillig Phantom Commuter Diesel Yes 45 2 2012 2000 Gillig Phantom Commuter Diesel Yes 45 2 2012 2000 Gillig Phantom Commuter Diesel Yes 45 2 2012 2000 Gillig Phantom Commuter Diesel Yes 45 2 2012 2003 Orion V Commuter CNG Yes 29 2 2015 1998 Ford E-350 DAR/F.R. Diesel Yes 15 2 2003 2001 Ford E-450 DAR/F.R. Diesel Yes 15 2 2006 2001 Ford E-450 DAR/F.R. Diesel Yes 15 2 2006 2001 Ford E-450 DAR/F.R. Diesel Yes 15 2 2006 2001 Ford E-450 DAR/F.R. Diesel Yes 15 2 2006 2001 Ford E-450 DAR/F.R. Diesel Yes 15 2 2006 2001 Ford E-450 DAR/F.R. Diesel Yes 15 2 2006 2003 Ford E-450 DAR/F.R. Diesel Yes 15 2 2008 2003 Ford E-450 DAR/F.R. Diesel Yes 15 2 2008 2003 Ford E-450 DAR/F.R. Diesel Yes 15 2 2008 2003 Ford E-450 DAR/F.R. Diesel Yes 15 2 2008 2003 Ford E-450 DAR/F.R. Diesel Yes 15 2 2008

Source: Roseville Transit

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 68 Short Range Transit Plan Update

TABLE 42: Park-and-Ride Facilities in Roseville

Average Number Number of Location of Spaces Vehicles

Cirby/ Orlando 40 13 Saugstad Park 89 66 Maidu Park 50 10 Taylor Road and Interstate 80 72 42 Foothills June Shop (1) 25 n/ a Creekside Center 25 n/ a Mehany Park 50 n/ a The Roseville Galleria 50 n/ a

Total 401 131

Note 1: at Foothills and Junction Boulevard. Note 2: A Park- and- Ride facility is planned within a mile radius of Douglas Boulevard and I- 80 (through MTIP).

Source: Roseville Transit.

Facilities

The City provides the contractor with office facilities, located at 2005 Hilltop Circle. The facilities include an administrative office with a reception area, a manager’s office, a dispatch area, bathrooms and a storage area. A drivers’ room is provided in a trailer located at the back of the yard near the vehicle parking area. The facility is approximately 1,400 square feet in size, which the City would like to double. The contractor’s staff has access to the City’s lunch room, and shower and locker area. Vehicles are parked at this facility in outdoor lots, although Roseville Transit is currently running out of parking area. Roseville Transit would like to add a wash bay, additional office space and some additional secure office space out by the fueling station for electronic fareboxes.

The City of Roseville’s mechanics maintains all transit vehicles at the city garage. The City maintenance facility is located at the Roseville Corporation Yard off of PFE Road in the southern part of the city. Currently, there are two full-time mechanics who are dedicated to transit vehicles. If necessary, the contractor’s Project Manager works with the city’s Maintenance Manager to devote additional mechanic resources on transit vehicles. Maintenance costs to Roseville Transit have increased substantially in the recent past: from $65.00 per hour in Fiscal Year 2001-02, to $75.00 per hour in Fiscal Year 2002-03 and a budgeted figure of $97.00 per hour in Fiscal Year 2003-04.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 69

Roseville Transit Financial Analysis

Revenue

Roseville Transit is funded through various sources, including monies made available through TDA, the Federal Transit Administration and fare revenues. Table 43 presents revenues received for Fiscal Year 2001-02.

Expenses and Cost Allocation Model

Total operating expenditures for Fiscal Year 2001-02 were $2,475,972, as presented in Table 44. General administrative costs for Roseville Transit (excluding contract costs) totaled $329,778. Operational costs, including the contract service amount of $1,661,577, totaled $2,146,194.

Table 44 also includes a cost allocation model for Roseville Transit, in which each cost item is assigned to the “service variable” – vehicle service hours, vehicle service miles or fixed costs – on which it is most dependent. Fuel costs, for example, are allocated to vehicle service miles. Based on vehicle service hours, the fixed costs are further allocated to each of the three services. These costs are used in the evaluation of service alternatives (in Chapter 9) to estimate the marginal cost of any changes in service, such as the operation of additional routes or changes in operating times, analyzed in future tasks of this study.

Roseville Transit Fiscal Year 2001-02 Performance Analysis

To gain insight into the efficiency and effectiveness of Roseville Transit services, it is useful to conduct an analysis of ridership and operating data on a service category basis. Ridership and operating statistics for Fiscal Year 2001-02 were reviewed to identify operating characteristics, fares, and operating costs for each route. Fares were then subtracted from costs to identify the average subsidy required to fund each route. Finally, these data were used to evaluate a number of productivity and service measures.

Table 45 presents overall operating and performance data for all Roseville Transit services for Fiscal Year 2001-02. As presented in Figure 30, annual ridership ranged from a low of 4,064 on the Route R-PM service1 to a high of 87,631 on the Commuter service. Of the regular fixed- route services, the Route J service provided the greatest number of one-way passenger-trips (31,302), followed by the Route D service (27,056) and the Route K-Reverse service (18,945). On the flip side, the Route C service provided the fewest one-way passenger-trips (7,230), followed by the Route M service (7,846), the Route C-Reverse service (8,823), the Route B service (9,421) and the Route A service (9,984).

1 It should be noted that, combined, the Route R-AM and Route R-PM services provided 8,563 one-way passenger-trips in Fiscal Year 2001-02.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 70 Short Range Transit Plan Update

TABLE 43: Roseville Transit Revenue for FY 2001-02

Line I tem Amount Percent of Total

Interest on Investments $69,159 1.4%

Current Services $12,295 0.2%

Passenger Fares $462,216 9.1%

TDA Funds $3,486,434 68.7%

Trans. Assistance Funds $93,874 1.9%

CMAQ Grant $360,000 7.1%

FTA Funds $532,502 10.5%

Unrealized Gain/ Loss Investment ($3,356) - 0.1%

Miscellaneous Revenue $28 0.0%

Operating Revenues $5,013,152 98.8%

From Other Agencies $20,000 0.4%

Accident Expense Recovery $4,596 0.1%

Advertising Revenue $5,400 0.1%

Reimbursement $28,302 0.6%

Miscellaneous Revenue $955 0.0%

Other Revenues $59,253 1.2%

Total Revenues $5,072,405 100%

Source: City of Roseville Expenditure/ Revenue Summary for period ending June 30, 2002.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 71

TABLE 44: Roseville Transit Operating Expenses and Cost Model, FY 2001-02

Cost Factor

Percent of Annual Expenses Expense Total Fi x ed Vehicle Service Hour Vehicle Service Mile

General Administration

Salaries, Wages, Benefits $195,849 7.9% $195,849 – –

Advertising, Copying, Printing $62,951 2.5% $62,951 – –

Office Supplies, Postage $5,984 0.2% $5,984 – –

Minor Equip & Tools $511 0.0% $511 – –

Books, Tapes, Memberships $2,810 0.1% $2,810 – –

Repair & Maintenance $501 0.0% $501 – –

Utilities, Phone $3,310 0.1% $3,310 – –

Training, Prof. Dev., Travel $3,470 0.1% $3,470 – –

Professional Services $24,672 1.0% $24,672 – –

Technology Equipment $25,192 1.0% $25,192 – –

Miscellaneous $38 0.002% $38 – –

General Liability Insurance $4,490 0.2% $4,490 – –

Total Expenses: Admininstrative $329,778 13.3% $329,778 $0 $0

Transit Services

Contract Services (MV Transportation) $1,661,577 67.1% – $1,661,577 –

Gas & Oil $166,638 6.7% – – $166,638

Copy/ Printing, Office Supplies $543 0.02% $543 – –

Program Transportation $323 0.01% $323 – –

Minor Equip & Tools $1,641 0.1% – – $1,641

Vehicle Repair & Preparation $147,115 5.9% – – $147,115

Equipment Repair & Maint. $1,184 0.05% – – $1,184

Pooled Vehicle Usage $5,570 0.2% $5,570 – $5,570

Other Internal Charges (1) $161,603 6.5% – – $161,603

Total Expenses: Operating $2,146,194 86.7% $6,436 $1,661,577 $483,751

Total Contract Expenses $1,661,577 67.1% – $1,661,577 –

Total Non- Contract Expenses $814,395 32.9% $336,214 $0 $483,751

Total Expenses $2,475,972 100% $336,214 $1,661,577 $483,751

FY 2001- 02 Service Variables – 57,742 802,127

FY2001- 02 Cost Equation Factor

Non- Contract Expenses – – $336,214 – $0.60

Contract Expenses – – – $28.78 –

Total – – $336,214 $28.78 $0.60

Note 1: Maintenance services provided by City of Roseville fleet maintenance department.

Sources: City of Roseville Expenditure/ Revenue Summary for period ending 6/ 30/ 99, LSC model, MV contract.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 72 Short Range Transit Plan Update

TABLE 45: Roseville Transit Performance Indicators, FY 2001-02

Fixed Routes Line Item A B C C-Rev D E J J-Rev K K-Rev M R-AM R-PM Subtotal Dial-A-Ride Commuter Total

Operating Characteristics

One-Way Passenger-Trips 9,984 9,421 7,230 8,823 27,056 15,498 31,302 16,376 13,013 18,945 7,846 4,499 4,064 174,057 62,410 87,631 324,098

Vehicle Service Hours 2,268 2,268 1,966 1,966 4,536 3,023 2,926 2,926 2,873 2,873 4,536 386 386 32,548 19,947 5,247 57,742

Vehicle Service Miles 40,638 32,245 26,061 26,061 66,258 48,589 35,616 35,616 31,804 31,804 75,534 7,160 7,160 457,386 248,270 96,471 802,127

Farebox Revenues $8,065 $7,611 $5,841 $7,128 $21,857 $12,520 $25,287 $13,229 $10,512 $15,305 $6,338 $3,634 $3,283 $140,610 $55,998 $265,608 $462,216

Allocated Operating Cost (1) $89,808 $84,744 $72,319 $72,319 $170,555 $116,340 $105,720 $105,720 $101,895 $101,895 $176,152 $15,432 $15,432 $1,212,940 $723,998 $209,256 $2,146,194

Allocated Overhead (2) $12,953 $12,953 $11,228 $11,228 $25,906 $17,265 $16,711 $16,711 $16,408 $16,408 $25,906 $2,205 $2,205 $185,891 $113,919 $29,968 $329,778

Total Operating Cost $102,761 $97,697 $83,547 $83,547 $196,461 $133,605 $122,431 $122,431 $118,303 $118,303 $202,058 $17,637 $17,637 $1,398,831 $837,917 $239,224 $2,475,972

Total Operating Subsidy $94,696 $90,086 $77,706 $76,419 $174,604 $121,085 $97,144 $109,202 $107,791 $102,998 $195,720 $14,003 $14,354 $1,258,221 $781,919 ($26,384) $2,013,756

Performance Indicators

Passenger-Trips per VSH 4.4 4.2 3.7 4.5 6.0 5.1 10.7 5.6 4.5 6.6 1.7 11.7 10.5 5.3 3.1 16.7 5.6

Passenger-Trips per VSM 0.25 0.29 0.28 0.34 0.41 0.32 0.88 0.46 0.41 0.60 0.10 0.63 0.57 0.38 0.25 0.91 0.40

Operating Cost per VSH $45.31 $43.08 $42.50 $42.50 $43.31 $44.20 $41.84 $41.84 $41.18 $41.18 $44.55 $45.69 $45.69 $42.98 $42.01 $45.59 $42.88

Operating Cost per Passenger-Trip $10.29 $10.37 $11.56 $9.47 $7.26 $8.62 $3.91 $7.48 $9.09 $6.24 $25.75 $3.92 $4.34 $8.04 $13.43 $2.73 $7.64

Subsidy per Passenger-Trip $9.48 $9.56 $10.75 $8.66 $6.45 $7.81 $3.10 $6.67 $8.28 $5.44 $24.95 $3.11 $3.53 $7.23 $12.53 ($0.30) $6.21

Farebox Recovery Ratio 7.8% 7.8% 7.0% 8.5% 11.1% 9.4% 20.7% 10.8% 8.9% 12.9% 3.1% 20.6% 18.6% 10.1% 6.7% 111.0% 18.7%

Average Fare $0.81 $0.81 $0.81 $0.81 $0.81 $0.81 $0.81 $0.81 $0.81 $0.81 $0.81 $0.81 $0.81 $0.81 $0.90 $3.03 $1.43

Note 1: Operating costs are allocated based on the number of vehicle service hours and miles operated by route/service and the cost model presented in Tables 38 and 39.

Note 2: Fixed costs are allocated by proportion of total vehicle service hours for each route/service.

Source: MV Transportation, Monthly Management Reports and City of Roseville.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 73

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 74 Short Range Transit Plan Update

FI GURE 30: Roseville Transit Annual Ridership Fiscal Year 2001-02

A 9,984 B 9,421 C 7,230 C- Rev 8,823 D 27,056 E 15,498 J 31,302 J- Re v 16,376 K 13,013 K- Rev 18,945

Route/ Service M 7,846 R- AM 4,499 R- PM 4,064 Dial-A-Ride 62,410 Commuter 87,631

0 25,000 50,000 75,000 100,000 Annual One-Way Passenger-Trips

FI GURE 31: Roseville Transit Annual Operating Subsidy Fiscal Year 2001-02

A $94,696 B $90,086 C $77,706 C- Rev $76,419 D $174,604 E $121,085 J $97,144 J- Re v $109,202 K $107,791 K- Rev $102,998

Route/ Service M $195,720 R- AM $14,003 R- PM $14,354 Dial- A- Ride $781,919 Comm ut er ($26,384)

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

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 75

The systemwide operating cost in Fiscal Year 2001-02 was $2,475,972 and the systemwide farebox revenues totaled $462,216. The resulting annual operating subsidy was $2,013,756. Figure 31 above presents annual operating subsidy by route/service. As presented, the Dial-A- Ride service required the greatest annual operating subsidy ($781,919), while the combined Route R-AM and Route R-PM service only required $28,357 in annual subsidy. Of the regular fixed-routes, the Route M service required the greatest annual operating subsidy ($195,720), followed by the Route D service ($174,604) and the Route J-Reverse service ($109,202). The Route C-Reverse service required the least annual subsidy of the regular fixed-routes ($76,419), followed by the Route C service ($77,706) and the Route B service ($90,086). The commuter service actually generated a greater amount of farebox revenues than it required in operating funds, resulting in an annual subsidy of $26,384 in Fiscal Year 2001-02.

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 and in Figure 32, the system as a whole achieved a productivity of 5.6 one-way passenger trips per vehicle service hour. The commuter service achieved the greatest productivity measure (16.7 one-way passenger-trips per vehicle service hour), followed by the fixed-route service (5.3) and the Dial- A-Ride service (3.1). On a route-by-route basis, the Route D service achieved the greatest number of passenger-trips per vehicle service hour (11.9), followed by the Route R-PM service (10.5), the Route J service (10.4) and the Route E service (6.8). The Route R-AM service achieved the lowest average number of one-way passenger-trips per vehicle service hour (1.0), followed by the Route M service (2.7), the Route C service (3.7) and the Route B service (4.2).

When fare revenue is subtracted from the total operating 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). This data is presented in Figure 33 above. The systemwide operating subsidy per one-way passenger trip in Fiscal Year 2001-02 was $6.21. Since the Commuter service generated a greater amount of farebox revenues than it cost to operate the service, it contributed $0.30 in funding to operate the service for each passenger boarded. Surprisingly, the Dial-A-Ride service did not require the greatest subsidy per one-way passenger-trip, as the Route M service required a subsidy of $24.95 per passenger-trip (the Dial-A-Ride service required $12.53 per passenger- trip). Of the regular fixed-routes, the Route J service achieved the lowest subsidy requirement per one-way passenger-trip ($3.10), followed by the Route R-AM service ($3.11), the Route R- PM service ($3.53) and the Route K-Reverse service ($5.44). As mentioned above, the Route M service required the greatest subsidy per passenger-trip among the fixed-routes, followed by the Route C service ($10.75), the Routes B service ($9.56) and the Route A service ($9.48).

The financial efficiency of a system can be measured by the operating farebox recovery ratio, which is illustrated in the table and compared by route/service category in Figure 34. The farebox recovery ratio is particularly important as a measurement for meeting the mandated minimums required for state funding. The systemwide farebox recovery ratio in Fiscal Year 2001-02 was an impressive 18.7 percent. Obviously, the outstanding efficiency of the commuter service (111.0 percent) has helped Roseville Transit achieve such a high overall farebox recovery ratio. Of the regular fixed-routes, the Route J service achieved the greatest farebox recovery ratio (20.7 percent), followed by the Route R-AM service (20.6 percent), the Route R-PM service (18.6 percent) and the Route K-Reverse service (12.9 percent).

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 76 Short Range Transit Plan Update

FI GURE 32: Roseville Transit Average Productivity Fiscal Year 2001-02

A 4.4 B 4.2 C 3.7 C- Rev 4.5 D 6.0 E 5.1 J 10.7 J- Re v 5.6 K 4.5 K- Rev 6.6

Route/ Service M 1.7 R- AM 11.7 R- PM 10.5 Dial- A- Ride 3.1 Comm ut er 16.7

0 5 10 15 20 Average One-Way Passenger-Trips per Vehicle Service Hour

FI GURE 33: Roseville Transit Subsidy Per Passenger-Trip Fiscal Year 2001-02

A $9.48 B $9.56 C $10.75 C- Rev $8.66 D $6.45 E $7.81 J $3.10 J- Re v $6.67 K $8.28 K- Rev $5.44

Route/ Service M $24.95 R- AM $3.11 R- PM $3.53 Dial-A-Ride $12.53 Commuter ($0.30)

($10.00) $0.00 $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 Annual Operating Subsidy per One-Way Passenger-Trip

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 77

FI GURE 34: Roseville Transit Farebox Recovery Ratio Fiscal Year 2001-02

A 7.8% B 7.8% C 7.0% C- Rev 8.5% D 11.1% E 9.4% J 20.7% J- Re v 10.8% K 8.9% K- Rev 12.9% Route/ Service M 3.1% R- AM 20.6% R- PM 18.6% Dial- A- Ride 6.7% Comm ut er 111.0%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% Annual Operating Farebox Recovery Ratio

Roseville Transit Strengths and Weaknesses of the Existing Service

The following are among the strengths of the existing Roseville Transit service:

Roseville Transit services provide good coverage of the older portions of Roseville, has recently implemented services in the newly-developed portions of Roseville, and is planning to provide service in the newest-developed areas.

The passenger transfer centers in Roseville provide good opportunities for transfers among Roseville Transit services and between other regional services.

The ability to transfer is enhanced by the fare policies of the various providers, which allow transfers at no charge.

Roseville Transit is well-run, with a high level of attention to the needs of the existing passengers.

The Sacramento Commuter service is very highly utilized and more than pays for its operating costs through farebox revenues.

The current service has the following weaknesses:

Maintenance costs are increasing at an alarming rate. Furthermore, the number of maintenance returns causes operational problems for the contractor.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 78 Short Range Transit Plan Update As there is no direct connection between Roseville Transit and the City of Rocklin, passengers must travel on PCT to complete many trips between these two neighboring communities. Growth in the northern portions of both communities is making this service gap increasingly critical.

CONSOLIDATED TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AGENCY (CTSA)

CTSA was designated by PCTPA to consolidate and coordinate transportation for the County’s public and private social services. As the designated social service transportation provider for Western Placer County, CTSA is able to claim up to five percent of the County’s annual TDA funds. With these funds, CTSA coordinates transportation for agencies, using its own vehicles and those of the County and of private providers. In July 1997, CTSA merged with Pride Industries, Inc., a private, non-profit company with a mission to provide jobs for people with disabilities. CTSA is now operated by the Transportation Division of PRIDE Industries.

CTSA of Placer County primarily provides contract transportation service to several agencies within Placer County. In addition, a limited amount of service is provided to Sacramento County residents participating in Placer County social service programs. CTSA also provides other non-TDA funded services such as charter services.

In order to obtain a clear picture of all CTSA services and associated costs, a comparison of ridership, vehicle service miles, vehicle service hours, and allocated operating costs for each CTSA service has been prepared. While improved accounting procedures have recently been implemented, CTSA has historically tracked services and costs for the larger transportation program as a whole, rather than for the individual services they provide. The Consultant’s worked with CTSA staff to develop the best available data on which to base this discussion.

It was first necessary to develop an updated cost model by which to estimate operating costs for individual services. As shown in Table 47, total costs for CTSA in Fiscal Year 2002- 2003 were $1,714,102. This number includes operating costs associated with every service CTSA operates including any non-TDA funded services. Vehicle depreciation is not included in the operating costs. Individual cost line items were allocated to the service variable that best defines the cost, in three categories: vehicle-miles of service (such as fuel and maintenance costs), vehicle-hours of service (such as driver wages and benefits), and fixed costs (such as administrative and facility costs that do not vary by small changes in service levels). Total service variable quantities (vehicle service hours and vehicle service miles) for all of CTSA services were obtained from CTSA internal operating data. By dividing service variable quantities into total expenses ($1,714,102), cost factors of $26.61 per vehicle service hour $0.66 per vehicle service mile, and $370,413 in fixed costs for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 were calculated.

These cost factors were multiplied by vehicle service hours and miles data for each service to obtain the allocated marginal operating costs by service found in Table 48. By allocating fixed costs by the proportion of vehicle service hours for each service, allocated overhead is calculated. Finally, allocated marginal operating costs and overhead are added to produce estimated total operating costs by service. A brief description of each CTSA service is listed below with its total operating cost.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC,Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 79 CTSA Services Operated Under Contract with Placer County Transit and Supported by TDA funds

CTSA operates three Dial-A-Ride services under contract with PCT, using TDA funds:

Highway 49 DAR -- Services are provided on weekdays between 6:00 AM and 7:30 PM, and on Saturdays from 9:00 AM through 4:00 PM. Annual costs of $242,952 and annual ridership of 17,266 passenger-trips.

Rocklin-Loomis DAR -- Services are provided on weekdays between 6:00 AM and 8:00 PM, and on Saturdays from 9:00 AM through 4:00 PM. Scheduled service is provided to Rocklin High School at 6:45 AM, 7:45 AM, and 3:00 PM. Annual costs of $205,963 and annual ridership of 9,630 passenger-trips.

Granite Bay DAR -- Services are provided on weekdays between 9:00 AM and 11:00 AM, and again between 2:00 PM and 4:00 PM. Annual costs of $42,754 and annual ridership of 1,140 passenger-trips.

Note that CTSA jointly refers to the Rocklin-Loomis DAR and the Granite Bay DAR (as well as the Taylor Road Shuttle discussed below) as “South Placer DAR”.

Currently CTSA provides two deviated fixed routes under contract with PCT:

Foresthill Scheduled Fixed-Route Service – This route is operated between Auburn and Foresthill on weekdays. Buses depart Auburn at 7:00 AM, pick up passengers at five designated bus stops in Foresthill between 7:45 AM and 8:05 PM, and drop them off at five bus stops in Auburn starting at 8:45 AM. In the afternoon, a similar schedule is followed, departing Auburn at 3:00 PM. The one-way fare is $2.50. The passengers consist of students, seniors and low-income persons, with limited service for clients of various social service agencies and the general public to attend jobs, training programs and classes in the Auburn area. In Fiscal Year 2002-2003 only 168 one-way trips were provided on this service. Total operating costs for this service were $24,408.

Taylor Road Shuttle – This service operates between the hours of 6:35 A.M. to 8:25 P.M. Monday thru Friday and from 8:35 A.M. to 5:55 P.M on Saturdays. Service is provided between Auburn and Sierra College along Taylor Road. Passengers can make reservations for pick up between Auburn and the Ophir Park and Ride. The Taylor Road Shuttle provided 11,278 trips in Fiscal Year 2002-2003, while the total operating costs associated with this service were $152,321.

Ridership by month data for four of the services operated under contract with PCT is available for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 and presented in Table 46 below.

Other CTSA Services Supported by TDA Funds

In addition to the services provided under contract with PCT, CTSA also uses Transportation Development Act funds to help support the following services:

LSC,Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 80 Short Range Transit Plan Update TABLE 46: CTSA TDA-Funded Monthly Ridership by Service, FY 2001-2002

Highway 49 DAR Taylor Road Shuttle Rocklin-Loom is D AR Granite Bay DAR Total Month Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

July 2001 1,625 8.6% 707 7.0% 728 7.4% 152 10.2% 3,212 8.0% August 1,649 8.8% 784 7.8% 845 8.6% 181 12.2% 3,459 8.6% September 1,380 7.3% 715 7.1% 742 7.5% 89 6.0% 2,926 7.3% October 1,445 7.7% 883 8.7% 871 8.8% 120 8.1% 3,319 8.2% November 1,664 8.9% 881 8.7% 820 8.3% 104 7.0% 3,469 8.6% December 1,562 8.3% 768 7.6% 773 7.8% 86 5.8% 3,189 7.9% January 2002 1,697 9.0% 969 9.6% 833 8.4% 147 9.9% 3,646 9.1% February 1,375 7.3% 928 9.2% 780 7.9% 124 8.3% 3,207 8.0% March 1,527 8.1% 928 9.2% 814 8.2% 111 7.5% 3,380 8.4% April 1,594 8.5% 946 9.4% 870 8.8% 123 8.3% 3,533 8.8% May 1,715 9.1% 903 8.9% 911 9.2% 124 8.3% 3,653 9.1% June 1,562 8.3% 697 6.9% 881 8.9% 125 8.4% 3,265 8.1% Total 18,795 100% 10,109 100% 9,868 100% 1,486 100% 40,258 100% Per cen t 46.7% 25.1% 24.5% 3.7% So u r c e : C T SA .

Placer County Action Concept (PCAC) -- CTSA has agreements with Headstart Preschool Programs in Roseville, Auburn, and Colfax. Table 48 shows that PCAC total operating costs were $112,904 in Fiscal Year 2002-2003. According to internal operating data, 10,838 trips were provided by this service.

Alta Social Services -- CTSA contracts with the Alta California Regional Center to provide service. It should be noted that other agencies, including PCT, operate separate contracts with the Alta Center. The passengers are clients with developmental disabilities who cannot use public transit and cannot afford taxicab services. Service is provided in both Placer County and Sacramento County area. The Sacramento County program is included in the overall CTSA costs found in Table 48, however it is not funded with Placer County TDA money. The Alta Placer County program cost CTSA $56,847 to operate in 2002-2003, and the Alta Sacramento County program cost $124,614. According to internal data the Alta Placer County service provided 5,379 passenger trips and Alta Sacramento provided 9,328 passenger trips.

Health For All -- CTSA has had an annual contract with Health For All (HFA) since 1990, providing subscription door-to-door service between homes or care facilities and HFA. HFA clients include area seniors and adults with disabilities. CTSA operates approximately eight vehicles for this service. Two of the vehicles are owned by HFA, but are maintained by CTSA. HFA permits CTSA to use the vehicles to provide transportation to clients of other programs. Such sharing of resources helps keep the costs lower for all clients. It should be noted that CTSA ceased operating this service in November 2003. Fiscal Year 2002-2003 total operating costs for HFA were $ 445,843, and 40,016 trips were provided.

Foresthill Volunteer Service -- CTSA supports two different volunteer groups: Foresthill Volunteers and Foothill Volunteers. The Foresthill Volunteer Transportation Service provides medical transportation service, including rides to doctor appointments, in Foresthill and surrounding areas including Roseville. Service is provided by five volunteer drivers using a CTSA van with wheelchair accessibility. Rides are booked in advance. Riders are asked to provide a $5.00 donation to help cover the cost of transportation. Foresthill volunteers provided 5,688 one-way passenger trips. Total operating costs were $ 11,857 in 2002-2003.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC,Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 81 Foothill Volunteer Service -- The Foothill Volunteer Center office is located in Auburn. Transportation service is provided to passengers aged 60 and over, and also for transportation disabled persons (regardless of age) who are unable to use public transportation due to some physical or mental disability. These services are not available to the general public. The service area encompasses Lincoln, Roseville, Citrus Heights, the central and northern part of Placer County, and as far east as Colfax. Volunteer drivers provide transportation services for “essential appointments” (e.g., medical, prescription pick-ups, social services) using their private vehicles. Other trip needs (e.g., grocery shopping) are accommodated as driver availability allows. Reservations are required usually at least two days in advance. The average number of one-way passenger-trips provided in Fiscal Year 2001-02 was 7,838, serving from 350 to 400 clients. In Fiscal Year 2001-02, Foothill Center’s 117 volunteer drivers operated approximately 77,000 miles and 6,349 hours. In Fiscal Year 2002-03, 6,489 trips were provided. Currently, CTSA subsidizes their operation by giving them roughly $42,700 per year out of the total amount of TDA and non-TDA funds. CTSA does not provide any vehicles or drivers for this service, so operating costs are assumed to be $0 for this service.

Voucher Transportation Program -- CTSA acts as the coordinator for the TDA funded Voucher Transportation Program in Placer County. During Fiscal Year 2002-03, a total of 1,150 one-way passenger-trips were provided. Approximately $12,500 is allotted to this program each year. Occasionally clients of social service agencies or organizations have needs for transportation to medical appointments, job interviews, or court appearances. A trip voucher request is submit by the participating agency to CTSA, who evaluates the request and searches for the best transportation for the passenger. Modes of transportation include: public transit and riding with a friend or family member. If these modes are not possible or appropriate for the passenger, CTSA contracts the trip out to a taxi service or specialized transit and charges the Voucher Program. Karen’s Errands and CTSA provide the majority of the contracted voucher trips. In an effort to reduce costs, CTSA incorporates these contracted trips into one of their existing routes whenever possible. For this reason, vehicle service mile and vehicle service hour data is not available for the voucher program; therefore operating cost information can not be obtained.

IRDES and IMEDS -- The destination of an IRDES trip can be for medical appointments, school, for individuals, or through social service agencies such as the Department of Rehabilitation and the Department of Mental Health. Passengers are charged a rate that is based on the distance of the trip. IMEDS include services provided for Medical recipients. A group of individuals needing transportation to the Visual Center in Auburn is also included in this category. Visual passengers are charged $2.00 per trip. CTSA does not maintain separate data for IRDE and IMED trips. In Fiscal Year 2002-2003, 6,703 trips were provided and $180,206 was spent in total operating costs for these programs.

Other Services – Non TDA funded

In addition to the services discussed above that are funded partially using TDA funds, the CTSA also provides the following additional services:

CTSA provides charter services to groups such as Sun City Roseville, Sienna Care, and other facilities/individuals that need transportation to a special event. Only 192 trips are

LSC,Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 82 Short Range Transit Plan Update included in this category. Fiscal Year 2002-2003, total operating costs for charter services were $25,185.

The Sierra Vista service transports developmentally disabled individuals from the Sierra Vista facility to the Pride Roseville office, costing roughly $37,023 in 2002-03 for 498 trips.

The Capital Corridor service was a demonstration program funded by CCJPA which operated for six months in Fiscal Year 2002-2003. Buses ran twice a day for commuters between the Auburn Amtrak station and Colfax. According to internal data, 482 passenger trips were provided in 2002-2003 and total operating costs were estimated to be $24,603. This service was discontinued due to low ridership.

Table 47: CTSA Annual Operating Expense and Cost Model, FY 2002-03

Cost Factor Percent of Vehicle Line Item Expense Total Fixed Costs Hours Vehicle Miles Expenses - Personnel Payroll Payroll - Drivers $585,661 34.2% $585,661 Payroll - Mechanics $94,162 5.5% $94,162 Payroll - Office & Administration $125,282 7.3% $125,282 Payroll Subtotal $805,105 47.0% $125,282 $585,661 $94,162 Other Personnel Payroll Taxes $74,267 4.3% $11,557 $54,024 $8,686 Vacation, Sick & Comp Time $96,640 5.6% $15,038 $70,299 $11,303 Health Benefits $96,162 5.6% $14,964 $69,952 $11,247 Life & LTD Insurance $960 0.1% $149 $698 $112 W orkers Comp. Insurance $62,962 3.7% $9,797 $45,801 $7,364 Direct Contract Labor $0 0.0% $0 $0 $0 Other Personnel Subtotal $330,991 19.3% $51,505 $240,774 $38,711 Personnel Subtotal $1,136,096 66.3% $176,787 $826,435 $132,873 Expenses - Operations Professional Services $1,210 0.1% $1,210 Bank Charges $17 0.0% $17 Vehicle Repair $81,499 4.8% $81,499 Petroleum Products $194,053 11.3% $194,053 Vehicle Insurance $90,098 5.3% $90,098 Vehicle License Fee $2,349 0.1% $2,349 CTSA Vehicle Expense $100 0.0% $100 Direct Operating Supplies $11,755 0.7% $11,755 Uniforms $3,729 0.2% $3,729 Driver Training/ Education $6,486 0.4% $6,486 Alcohol and Drug Testing $6,786 0.4% $6,786 Employment Adds & Incentives $3,756 0.2% $3,756 Bus & First Aid Supplies $2,439 0.1% $2,439 Computer Software/Hardware $16,726 1.0% $16,726 Computer Consulting $0 0.0% $0 Office Supplies $12,261 0.7% $12,261 Postage $591 0.0% $591 Dues & Subscriptions $65 0.0% $65 Promotion/PR $1,501 0.1% $1,501 Office Equipment - Repairs $3,496 0.2% $3,496 Repair & Maintenance - Bldg $386 0.0% $386 Staff Expenses 0.0% $0 U tilities $5,877 0.3% $5,877 Taxes, Licenses and Fees $570 0.0% $570 Telephone $38,034 2.2% $38,034 Rent $72,071 4.2% $72,071 Misc. $22,151 1.3% $22,151 Operations Subtotal $578,006 33.7% $193,626 $108,728 $275,652 Total Expenses $1,714,102 100% $370,413 $935,163 $408,525 FY 2002-03 Service Variable Quantities – 35,142 616,616 FY 2002-03 Cost Factors $370,413 $26.61 $0.66 Source: CTSA TDA Allocation FY 2002-2003.xls

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC,Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 83

------NA Services $1,714,101 Total CTSA

company Pride Inter-

Capital Corridor

(2) ------Alta

County Sacramento Non TDA funded services

Charter and Other Services

Sierra Vista (1) ------NA NA NA NA NA 192 498 9,328 482 1,591 127,836 576 661 2,601 426 598 35,142 5,704 18,827 42,239 13,248 6,673 616,616 $6,073 $6,965 $27,415 $4,490 $6,299 $370,413 $25,185 $37,023 $124,614 $24,603 $26,623 $19,112 $30,058 $97,199 $20,113 $20,324 $1,343,688 Charter

-- -- NA 3.82 -- -- 0.22 -- -- 30,281 Funded 115,745 529,925 Services $319,171 1,156,882

Total TDA $1,476,053

Voucher Data not Data not Data not Data not Data not Program Available Available Available Available Available

Individuals 2.07 -- 0.07 -- 7.5% -- IMEDS IRDES/

Individuals/

(6) Foothill (5) ------$24.87 --

All Foresthill Health for

Services Volunteer Services Subscription

General

TDA Funded Services

Shuttle PCAC Alta Taylor Rd Route

Deviated Fixed

Bay Foresthill Granite

Loomis Rocklin-

Dial A Ride

3.100.32 1.95 1.12 0.28 0.33 0.15 3.67 0.02 3.84 0.20 35.96 0.88 4.46 0.07 0.24 -- 0.32 -- -- 5,574 4,926 1,016 512 3,075 2,819 150 8,978 N/A N/A 3,232 $14.07 $21.39$13.79 $37.50 $20.92 $145.29 $36.63 $13.51 $10.42 -- $10.57 $11.14 $13.16 $2.08 ------$26.88 -- -- $12.75 -- -- 17,266 9,630 1,140 168 11,278 10,838 5,379 40,016 5,688 6,489 6,703 1,150 $4,810 $4,549 $995 NA $3,906 NA NA NA NA $0 $13,508 NA 54,141 34,650 7,560 8,141 57,478 12,339 77,414 169,532 17,897 N/A 90,773 Hwy 49 $58,752 $51,922 $10,709 $5,395 $32,412 $29,713 $1,577 $94,626 $0 N/A $34,065 $242,950 $205,963 $42,754 $24,408 $152,321 $112,904 $56,847 $445,843 $11,857 $0 $180,206 $184,198 $154,041 $32,045 $19,013 $119,909 $83,191 $55,270 $351,217 $11,857 $0 $146,141

(4) (3)

Table 48: Estimated CTSA Operating Characteristics and Performance Indicators by Service, FY 2002-03 Farebox Recovery Ratio 2.0% 2.2% 2.3% -- 2.6% ------Operating Cost per Passenger-Trip Operating Subsidy per Passenger-Trip Passenger-Trips per Vehicle Hour of Service Passenger-Trips per Vehicle- Mile of Service Performance Indicators Total Estimated Operating Cost One-way Passenger Trips Passenger Revenues Allocated Overhead Vehicle Hours of Service Vehicle Miles of Service Allocated Marginal Operating Costs Note 1: Charter Services include Sun City. Note 2: Alta servcies that both begin and end in Sacramento County. Note 3: Operating costs are allocated based on the number of vehicle service hours and miles operated by route/service CTSA Fiscal Year 2002-03 cost model. Note 4: Fixed costs are allocated by proportion of total vehicle service hours for each route/service. Note 5: VSH was not used to calculate operating costs, because drivers are volunteers. Note 6: CTSA gives Foothill Volunteer Services $42,700 per year in funding.

LSC,Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 84 Short Range Transit Plan Update Pride Inter-Company trips were provided by CTSA for Pride employees to attend different functions that are employment related. Total operating costs associated with this service were $26,623.

CTSA Capital Assets

Vehicle Fleet

As presented in Table 49 below, CTSA has an extensive and relatively new fleet. The fleet totals 38 vehicles, ranging in age from 4 to 16 years. The vehicles accommodate an average of 14 seated passengers. Except for the school buses, which are owned by Placer Community Action Council and used for the Headstart program, CTSA vehicles are wheelchair-accessible. All the CTSA-owned vehicles were purchased using FTA 5310 funding.

TABLE 4 9 : CTSA Vehicle Fleet Roster

Unit Seating W heelchair Num ber Year Make Model Capacity Accessible 2 (1 ) 1992 Wayne G30 20 No 3 (1 ) 1987 Ford E350 16 No 6 (1 ) 1987 GMCCL G3500 16 No (1 ) 7 1998 GMCCL G3500 19 No 19 1995 Wayne G30 17 No 59 1994 Ford E350 14 Yes 60 1995 Ford E350 14 Yes 61 1996 Ford E350 14 Yes 62 1994 Ford E350 14 Yes 63 1995 Ford E350 14 Yes 64 1995 Ford E350 14 Yes 65 1995 Chvrl Senator 14 Yes 66 1995 Chvrl Senator 14 Yes 67 1995 Chvrl Senator 14 Yes 68 1995 Chvrl Senator 14 Yes 71 1997 Ford E350 14 Yes 72 1997 Ford E350 14 Yes 73 1997 Ford E350 14 Yes 74 1997 Ford E350 14 Yes 75(2 ) 1997 Ford E350 14 Yes 76(2 ) 1997 Ford E350 14 Yes 77 1997 Ford E350 14 Yes 78 1997 Dodge Activan 5 Yes 79 1997 Dodge Activan 5 Yes 80 1997 Dodge Activan 5 Yes 81 1998 Ford E450 10 Yes 82 1998 Ford E450 10 Yes 83 1998 Ford E350 12 Yes 84 1998 Ford E350 12 Yes 85 1998 Ford E350 12 Yes 86 1999 Ford E450 14 Yes 87 1999 Ford E450 14 Yes 88 1999 Ford E450 14 Yes 89 1999 Ford E450 14 Yes 90 1999 Ford E450 22 Yes 91 1999 Ford E450 14 Yes 93 1999 Ford E450 14 Yes 96 1993 Ford E350 20 Yes 98 1992 Ford Aerostar 6 No Note 1: Vehicles owned by Placer Com m unity Action Council, but operated by CTSA. Note 2: Vehicles ow ned by Health For All, but operated by CTSA.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC,Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 85 Revenue

A list of CTSA funding sources can be found in Table 50. As shown, CTSA received a total of $1,903,383 in funding for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 according to internal reports. TDA funding direct from Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) accounted for 35 percent of the total. Roughly 18 percent of total funding came from Placer County Transit TDA funds. Almost half of all funds that CTSA received (46 percent) in Fiscal Year 2002-2003 came from other non-TDA sources. The $42,700 which CTSA gives to the Foothill Volunteer center is taken out of the funding sources listed in Table 50. In addition to these sources CTSA received $50,766 in fare revenue during that period.

TDA funds have historically been allocated based upon the proportion of total passenger trips plus no-shows on each service. Except for the DAR and Deviated Fixed Route Services, most CTSA services are only partially funded by TDA.

Table 50: CTSA Funding Sources Fiscal Year 2002-2003

Source Amount % of Total

Placer County TDA funds PCTPA - TDA funds $672,178 35.3%

TDA Funding from Placer County Transit for Hwy 49 $207,242 10.9% DAR TDA Funding from Placer County Transit for South $140,358 7.4% Placer DAR (1) Subtotal Funding from Placer County Transit $347,600 18.3% Total TDA funding $1,019,778 53.6% Other Funding Sources Voucher Program $12,544 0.7% Alta Placer County $45,752 2.4% Alta Sacramento County $148,938 7.8% ARC/Pride $26,149 1.4% Health for All $189,758 10.0% Medi-Cal $72,630 3.8% PCAC - Headstart $101,356 5.3% Special Services $132,723 7.0% Miscellaneous $196,455 10.3% Foothill Volunteer -$42,700 -2.2% Total Other Funding Sources $883,605 46.4% Total CSTA Funding $1,903,383 100.0%

Note 1: South Placer DAR includes Rocklin - Loomis DAR, Granite Bay DAR, and Taylor Rd. Shuttle. Source: CTSA TDA Allocation FY 2002-03

CTSA Miles and Hours of Service in Fiscal Year 2001-2002

Detailed miles and hours data is available for four of the services operated under contract with PCT. Monthly miles and hours data is not available for the Foresthill service, however according to internal data vehicle service hours and miles for Fiscal Year 2002-03 were 512 and 8,141, respectively. As presented in Table 51 below, the annual vehicle service hours operated on all four services totaled 13,109 in Fiscal Year 2001-2002. By far, the Highway 49 Dial-A- Ride service operated the greatest number of vehicle service hours, equating to 43.2 percent of the total. Only 4.4 percent of vehicle service hours were operated on the Granite Bay service.

LSC,Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 86 Short Range Transit Plan Update TABLE 51: CTSA TDA-Funded Monthly Vehicle Service Hours by Service, FY 2001-2002

Highway 49 DAR Taylor Rocklin-Loomis Granite Bay Total Month Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

July 2001 444 7.8% 302 8.0% 206 6.7% 46 8.1% 998 7.6% August 484 8.6% 310 8.2% 274 8.9% 58 10.2% 1,126 8.6% September 465 8.2% 305 8.0% 290 9.4% 44 7.7% 1,104 8.4% October 495 8.7% 305 8.0% 262 8.5% 51 8.9% 1,113 8.5% November 462 8.2% 320 8.4% 251 8.1% 50 8.8% 1,083 8.3% December 437 7.7% 303 8.0% 240 7.8% 45 7.9% 1,025 7.8% January 2002 512 9.0% 327 8.6% 249 8.1% 63 11.0% 1,151 8.8% February 471 8.3% 304 8.0% 248 8.0% 54 9.5% 1,077 8.2% March 465 8.2% 311 8.2% 252 8.2% 40 7.0% 1,068 8.1% April 483 8.5% 311 8.2% 314 10.2% 43 7.5% 1,151 8.8% May 503 8.9% 333 8.8% 262 8.5% 38 6.7% 1,136 8.7% June 439 7.8% 358 9.4% 241 7.8% 39 6.8% 1,077 8.2% Total 5,660 100% 3,789 100% 3,089 100% 571 100% 13,109 100% Percent 43.2% 28.9% 23.6% 4.4% Source: CTSA

Table 52 below presents the annual vehicle service miles operated on the same PCT contracted services during Fiscal Year 2001-2002. As presented, a total of 147,440 vehicle service miles were operated; the largest proportion was operated on the Highway 49 Dial-A-Ride service (35.5 percent), followed closely by the Taylor service (35.5 percent). Only 7.1 percent of vehicle service miles were operated on the Granite Bay service.

TABLE 52: CTSA TDA-Funded Monthly Vehicle Service Miles by Service, FY 2001-2002

Highway 49 DAR Taylor Rocklin-Loomis Granite Bay Total Month Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

July 2001 4,772 9.0% 4,086 7.8% 1,421 4.5% 720 6.9% 10,999 7.5% August 4,270 8.1% 4,792 9.2% 3,262 10.3% 1,014 9.7% 13,338 9.0% September 4,849 9.2% 2,921 5.6% 656 2.1% 802 7.7% 9,228 6.3% October 5,331 10.1% 4,131 7.9% 2,376 7.5% 1,190 11.4% 13,028 8.8% November 4,349 8.2% 3,801 7.3% 3,027 9.5% 893 8.6% 12,070 8.2% December 4,049 7.6% 3,649 7.0% 2,583 8.1% 772 7.4% 11,053 7.5% January 2002 5,139 9.7% 4,930 9.4% 2,876 9.1% 1,163 11.2% 14,108 9.6% February 344 0.6% 4,591 8.8% 2,868 9.0% 1,052 10.1% 8,855 6.0% March 5,001 9.4% 5,052 9.7% 3,456 10.9% 724 7.0% 14,233 9.7% April 5,032 9.5% 4,973 9.5% 3,167 10.0% 785 7.5% 13,957 9.5% May 5,177 9.8% 4,917 9.4% 3,319 10.5% 646 6.2% 14,059 9.5% June 4,662 8.8% 4,477 8.6% 2,733 8.6% 640 6.2% 12,512 8.5% Total 52,975 100% 52,320 100% 31,744 100% 10,401 100% 147,440 100% Percent 35.9% 35.5% 21.5% 7.1% Source: CTSA

CTSA Fiscal Year 2002-03 Performance Analysis

To gain further insight into the efficiency and effectiveness of CTSA’s services, an analysis of operating data was conducted. Operating statistics for those services contracted to Placer County in Fiscal Year 2002-03 were reviewed, and the data were used to evaluate a number of performance indicators. Table 48 presents the results of the analysis.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC,Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 87 Table 48 presents available operating and performance data for all TDA-funded CTSA services for Fiscal Year 2002-03. As presented in Figure 35, the highest annual ridership was provided on the Highway 49 Dial-A-Ride service (17,266 one-way passenger-trips), followed by the Taylor service (11,278), the Rocklin-Loomis service (9,630), the Granite Bay service (1,140) and the Foresthill service (168).

The systemwide CTSA operating cost in Fiscal Year 2002-03 was $1,714,101, of which $668,396 was required for the five Placer County contracted services depicted in Table 48. When fare revenues are deducted from the annual operating cost, the annual subsidy is the result. As presented in the table and in Figure 36 below, the Highway 49 Dial-A-Ride service incurred the greatest annual operating subsidy ($238,140), followed by the Rocklin-Loomis Dial-A-Ride ($201,414), the Taylor Road Shuttle ($148,415), and the Granite Bay Dial-A-Ride ($41,759). Fare revenue was not available for the Foresthill 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 and in Figure 37, the Taylor service achieved the greatest productivity measure (3.7 one-way passenger-trips per vehicle service hour), followed by the Highway 49 Shuttle (3.1), Rocklin-Loomis service (2.0), the Granite Bay service (1.1), and the Foresthill service (.03).

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). As presented in Figure 38 below, the Granite Bay service required the greatest subsidy per one-way passenger-trip ($36.63), followed by the Rocklin-Loomis service ($20.92), the Highway 49 Dial- A-Ride ($13.79), and the Taylor Road Shuttle ($13.16). Data was not available for Foresthill.

The financial efficiency of a system can be measured by the operating farebox recovery ratio. The farebox recovery ratio is particularly important as a measurement for meeting the mandated minimums required for state funding. As presented in Figure 39, the Taylor Road Shuttle achieved the greatest farebox recovery ratio (2.6 percent), followed by the Granite Bay service (2.3 percent), the Rocklin-Loomis service (2.2 percent), and the Highway 49 Dial-A-Ride (2.0 percent).

Strengths And Weaknesses of CTSA Service Structure

CTSA’s current service structure includes the following strengths:

More opportunity for a more efficient and less costly service by not being confined to certain city boundaries.

By managing several social service agency contracts and providing service to eligible individuals, trips can be coordinated by geographical area, as opposed to serving only one agency at a time with the potential of having to transport clients scattered across a large area.

The CTSA existing vehicle fleet is currently under-utilized.

LSC,Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 88 Short Range Transit Plan Update FIGURE 35: CTSA Annual Ridership Fiscal Year 2002-03

Highway 49 Dial-A- 17,266 Ride

Taylor 11,278

Rocklin-Loomis 9,630 Route/Service Granite Bay 1,140

Foresthill 168

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Annual One-Way Passenger-Trips

FIGURE 36: CTSA Annual Operating Subsidy Fiscal Year 2002-03

Highway 49 Dial-A- $238,140 Ride

Taylor $148,415

Rocklin-Loomis $201,414 Route/Service Granite Bay $41,759

Foresthill N/A

$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 Annual Operating Subsidy

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC,Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 89 FIGURE 37: CTSA Average Productivity Fiscal Year 2002-03

Highway 49 Dial-A- 3.1 Ride

Taylor 3.7

Rocklin-Loomis 2.0 Route/Service Granite Bay 1.1

Foresthill 0.3

012345 Average One-Way Passenger-Trips per Vehicle Service Hour

FIGURE 38: CTSA Subsidy Per Passenger-Trip Fiscal Year 2002-03

Highway 49 Dial-A- $13.79 Ride

Taylor $13.16

Rocklin-Loomis $20.92 Route/Service Granite Bay $36.63

Foresthill N/A

$0.00 $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00 Annual Operating Subsidy per One-Way Passenger-Trip

LSC,Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 90 Short Range Transit Plan Update FIGURE 39: CTSA Farebox Recovery Ratio Fiscal Year 2002-03

Highway 49 Dial-A- 2.0% Ride

Taylor 2.6%

Rocklin-Loomis 2.2% Route/Service Granite Bay 2.3%

Foresthill N/A

0% 3% 5% Annual Operating Farebox Recovery Ratio

The primary weakness of CTSA’s current service structure is that the amount of resources needed to provide service can be difficult to estimate with several contracts undergoing a competitive bidding process as frequently as every year.

SUMMARY OF WESTERN PLACER COUNTY TRANSIT OPERATORS

Table 53 presents a summary of existing public transit services based in Western Placer County in Fiscal Year 2001-02. As indicated, the five services as a whole carried nearly 800,000 one- way passenger-trips, using a fleet of 93 vehicles. A total of roughly $7 million was spent during the fiscal year on operations, administration and maintenance functions.

Considering the five individual public transit providers as a system, the region’s public transit network has the following existing strengths and weaknesses:

Western Placer County Transit Operators Strengths

Transit services provide good “coverage” of the region: public transit services are available throughout a majority of the urbanized portions of the study area.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC,Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 91

93 Area 10.5% 150,181 794,188 $742,566 1,973,821 $7,064,745 Total Study 39 34 18.7% Note 4 Transit CTSA Roseville 5 9.6% 4,457 54,900 52,902 Transit Lincoln 4 7.0% Transit Auburn (1) 11 8.7% Placer County 232,319 46,463 25,877 324,098 165,431 Transit $223,621 $20,475 $36,255 $462,216 Note 4 $2,570,562 $293,490 $378,360 $2,471,482 $1,350,851 (3, 5) (3) TABLE 53: Summary of Western Placer County Transit Providers, Fiscal Year 200 1 -02 Passenger Revenues Annual Operating Cost Annual Vehicle Service MilesVehicles in Fleet 628,575 62,680 50,129 775,657 456,780 Annual Ridership Annual Vehicle Service Hours 32,568 5,355 Operating Farebox Ratio Operating Characteristic Note 1: PCT data includes fixed-route, Highway 49 DAR, and Alta Charter services. Note 2: CTSA charateristics in this table are for all services, not only TDA-funded services Note 3: Area-wide total passenger revenues and farebox ratio does not include CTSA. Note 4: CTSA "operating revenue" is not comparable to "passenger revenues," as it includes contract revenue well passenger fares. Note 5: Does not reflect specific accounting practices used in identification of farebox ratio for TDA reporting.

LSC,Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter3, Page 92 Short Range Transit Plan Update

There is a good level of connectivity between the various services, which enables passengers to complete trips throughout much of the combined service areas. This connectivity was enhanced greatly by the implementation of PCT’s Auburn - Light Rail service. Transit centers in Auburn and Roseville in particular provide opportunities for transfers.

The ability to transfer is enhanced by the fare policies of the various providers, which allow transfers at no charge.

In general, transit services are well-run, with a high level of attention to the needs of the existing passengers.

Western Placer County Transit Operators Weaknesses

As there is no direct connection between the Rocklin and Roseville systems, passengers must travel on PCT to complete many trips between these two neighboring communities. Growth in the northern portions of both communities is making this service gap increasingly critical.

While routes operate in close proximity, there is no effective connection between transit services in Placer County and Folsom (riders could conceivably connect with Folsom commuter services in Sacramento, but this would require considerable out-of-direction travel). As a result, commuting by transit is currently infeasible between the Roseville and Folsom areas.

With the exception of portions of the Roseville Transit fixed-route service, service frequency is limited to one trip per hour. This level is typically considered to be a minimum level of service, which limits transit service’s ability to attract choice riders.

Hours of operation are limited. As a result, many employees with non-traditional work shifts cannot use public transit services for commuting.

Weekend fixed-route services are limited: only some areas are provided with Saturday service, and Sunday service is only provided within Auburn.

Service levels in the more remote portions of the region (such as east of Bowman, or Foresthill) are low. Extensive low-density rural residential areas are not provided with any form of public transit service.

There has been a historical lack of jurisdictional buy-in for intercity services.

In summary, the Cities of Rocklin, Roseville, Lincoln, and Folsom are the fastest-growing communities in the five-county Sacramento Region. However, there are currently limited direct public transit services between these communities. This rapid growth will substantially change the need for public transit services over the five-year Short Range Transit Plan period.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 93

OTHER TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS

The choices of public and private transportation services throughout the study area are varied. The available services are somewhat coordinated, although operated on limited schedules. The following discussion presents information on the non-PCT public and private non-profit elderly/disabled services, as well as the private-for-profit services.

Foothill Flyer

Foothill Flyer has been providing airport transportation from the study area to the major metropolitan airports of Sacramento, Reno, Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose since 1989. Service is available to all of Placer, Nevada, and El Dorado Counties. Foothill Flyer has 8 one to six passenger vans and one sedan available. Van fares to or from the Sacramento Airport (the most popular destination) are based upon rate area with the following general prices:

Granite Bay, Lincoln, Lincoln Hills area costs $40 one-way, $75 round-trip and $19 each way per each additional passenger.

Loomis, Rocklin, Roseville area costs $33 one-way, $60 round-trip and $19 each way per each additional passenger.

Penryn, Newcastle, Auburn area costs $50 one-way, $95 round-trip and $29 each way per each additional passenger.

Grass Valley, Colfax, Foresthill area costs $60 one-way, $110 round-trip and $29 each way per each additional passenger

One to three passenger sedan fares are available to these areas for a flat rate of $65 to $85 one way. Charter service for groups is also available for special events, tours, dinner on the town, etcetera. Twenty-four hour door-to-door service is provided, however, most service necessitates an advanced reservation. Foothill Flyer does not have any wheelchair accessible vehicles, however they do have a contractual arrangement with Auburn Cab & Limousine Service to provide service for disabled passengers.

The Foothill Flyer service averages about 10 to 20 trips per day with an average of 3 persons per trip. It is estimated that 6,000 trips per year and between 10,000 and 11,000 persons use service annually.

Cancer Society Tri-County

Service is provided, at no charge, to cancer patients for transportation to and from treatment or cancer related doctor's appointments. Volunteers provide the service as well as the vehicle. Service is available to all cancer patients in Placer County

Sierra Cab and Limousine

Sierra Cab and Limousine, a division of Macy Transportation and Communications, has been operating since 1977. The service area includes all of Placer and Nevada Counties, with the

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 94 Short Range Transit Plan Update main terminal located in Auburn. Service is available 24-hours per day, seven days per week and is wheelchair-accessible. One cab operates in Placer County. A cab ride costs $7.00 (minimum charge) plus $2.40 per additional mile. Detailed ridership and vehicle trip information is not available, but it is estimated that the cab makes anywhere from 4 to 20 trips per day. In addition, Sierra Cab and Limousine operates one limousine as a charter service for wine country tours, proms, and other events. On average, this service is provided three times per month, the greatest demand experienced in spring and early summer. Depending on future demand, the limousine service may be canceled.

Sierra Medical Transportation

Sierra Medical Transportation, a division of Macy Transportation and Communications, provides wheelchair-accessible, non-emergency medical transportation and prescription delivery within Placer County. Twelve vehicles are available by appointment, Monday through Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. The cost to users varies from a flat roundtrip fee of $45 to a one-way fee of $25 for a wheelchair plus $2.40 per mile. Discounts are offered to Auburn residents. Ridership and vehicle-trip information is not available to the public

Health Express

Health Express is a medical transportation service funded mainly by the Sutter Auburn Faith Foundation as a community project. This funding pays a large portion of the costs of providing service to and from Sutter-Auburn Faith Hospital; the service is underwritten by Macy Transportation and Communications. Service is operated Monday through Thursday from 9:30 A.M. through 3:45 P.M., and from 9:30 A.M. to Noon on Friday. Service is available to anyone within approximately 5 miles of the hospital, free of charge. Health Express makes approximately 170 to 200 trips a month.

MEDICAB

MEDICAB, a Medi-Cal approved transportation provider, renders door-to-door non-emergency medical transportation. MEDICAB is based in Roseville with a service area which includes Roseville, Rocklin, Loomis, Granite Bay, Citrus Heights and ranges as far east as the Penryn and Newcastle area. Special trips are sometimes made to Sacramento or Auburn.

For patients meeting the Medi-Cal requirements (must be a “necessary appointment”), 100 percent of the service is paid for. Otherwise, service costs $40 flat rate plus $1.25 per mile for round-trip service and $25 flat rate plus $1.50 per mile for one-way service. Approximately 125 passenger-trips are made each week using four wheelchair accessible vehicles (two minivans and two full-size vans). Most of the service is funded by Medi-Cal.

Taxis and Limousine Service

There are several taxicab companies providing transportation services within the study area. Service is provided 24 hours per day, seven days a week. The taxi companies include the following:

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 95

All Dorado Taxi Greyhound Taxi Sierra Cab and Limousine R & R Taxi California Co-Op Cab Reliable Taxi Dependable Taxi

In addition to the taxicabs, there are several companies providing limousine service, as listed below:

California Limousines White Swan Limousine Lakeshore Pacific Limousine and Sierra Cab & Limousine Watercraft CEO Transport City Lights Limousine Gold Country Limousine

Air Transportation

As described below, the study area is served by two airports: Auburn Municipal Airport and Lincoln Municipal Airport. Although these airports can not accommodate commercial aircraft, both serve as key contributors to the area’s economic well-being. Also described below is Angel Flight medical transportation.

Lincoln Regional Airport

The Lincoln Regional Airport (formerly Lincoln Municipal Airport) is operated by the City of Lincoln, Department of Public Works. The airport’s location north of Nicolaus Road has provided the growing number of business executives in the Roseville, Rocklin and Auburn area an alternative airstrip to the Sacramento Metropolitan Airport. Currently, 200 aircraft are based at this airport, including two helicopters and two corporate jets. According to Lincoln Airport personnel, approximately 70,000 take offs and landings are estimated annually.

Auburn Municipal Airport

Auburn Municipal Airport is a general aviation airport located on New Airport Road, within the area north of Auburn, bounded by Bell Road to the south, Dry Creek Road to the north, Highway 49 to the west, and Interstate 80 to the east. Although the runway is smaller than the Lincoln Regional Airport, the accessibility of this location has proven ideal for the growing population of Western Placer County. There are currently 210 aircraft based at the Auburn Airport, including 5 multi-engine aircraft and one corporate jet. It is estimated that there are approximately 70,000 operations (take-offs and landings) per year. The airport is used primarily for recreational flying, however, as is true nationally, the percentage of business aviation is growing.

Angel Flight

Angel Flight, in operation since 1983, operates in the ten western states as a non-profit aviation group providing transportation to needy individuals. Volunteer pilots pick up patients at airports closest to their homes and provide air transportation for medical treatments. Service is provided free of charge for flights under 500 nautical miles. Service is provided at the Lincoln and Auburn Airports.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 96 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Rail Service

Amtrak California Zephyr

The Amtrak California Zephyr, which travels between Chicago and the Bay Area, includes service through Placer County heading in both the eastbound and westbound directions. The eastbound train leaves Sacramento at 11:35 A.M., reaching Roseville at 12:01 P.M., Colfax at 12:47 P.M. and Truckee at 3:03 P.M. The reverse westbound train leaves Truckee at 10:22 A.M., arriving in Colfax at 12:30 P.M., Roseville at 1:40 P.M. and Sacramento at 2:20 P.M. The train station in Roseville is located at 201 Pacific Street. The train station in Colfax is located at Church Street and the SP tracks.

Capital Corridor Amtrak Train and Bus Service

The Capital Corridor Amtrak service is a partnership between Amtrak and the state of California. As of the end of February, 2000, the service offers seven round trips on weekdays between Oakland and Sacramento (as well as four round trips between Oakland and San Jose). The morning and evening foothill extensions end at Auburn, rather than at Colfax as was previously the case. Amtrak Capital Corridor bus service offers shorter travel times and more departure times throughout the day. Buses heading westbound leave Colfax at 5:55 A.M., 6:25 A.M., 9:00 A.M., 11:00 A.M., and 4:10 P.M., with stops in Auburn, Rocklin, Roseville and Sacramento. Another westbound bus begins at 1:10 P.M. from Auburn. The total travel time for buses between Colfax and Sacramento averages around one hour and fifteen minutes. Buses heading eastbound leave Sacramento at 10:00 A.M., 1:00 P.M., 4:10 P.M., 7:45 P.M., and 9:00 P.M. The total travel time for buses between Sacramento and Colfax averages around one hour. In order to ride on the Capital corridor buses, passengers must ride on the train for part of their trip.

Greyhound Bus Lines

Greyhound bus lines has five westbound and five eastbound bus routes between Sacramento and Truckee with stops in Colfax, Auburn and Roseville. As depicted in Table 54 below, Greyhound operates six westbound and five eastbound departures daily. The only 24-hour ticket counter and bus station is located in downtown Sacramento at 715 L Street. The Roseville station is located at 201 Pacific Street. The Auburn stop has recently been relocated to the Sierra Super Stop located at 13400 Bowman Road. The Colfax station is located at Standlock Bottle Shop, 320 Canyon Way near the I-80/Colfax overpass. Fares within Placer County range from $8.00 to $12.00 one-way and from $15.00 to $24.00 round-trip.

Other Regional Public Transit Services

Gold Country Stage

Gold Country STAGE mainly serves Nevada County. However, Route 5 provides a connection between Grass Valley / Nevada City and Auburn, serving the Elder’s Transfer Center in Auburn. Buses leave Auburn at 6:54 A.M., 8:54 A.M., 12:54 P.M., 3:54 P.M. and 6:00 P.M. In addition, Route 12 provides a link between Grass Valley / Nevada City and the Greyhound bus stop in Colfax. This route departs Colfax at 7:00 A.M., 10:00 A.M., 1:00 P.M., 4:30 P.M. and 7:00 P.M. Both routes are available five times per day Monday through Friday and four times per day

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 3, Page 97

TABLE 54: Greyhound Lines I ncorporated Departures in Western Placer County

Westbound Greyhound Bus Schedule Bus Route 8303 8323 8319 8309 8325 8331 Departs Colfax - - 10:15 AM 3:10 PM - - 6:15 PM 9:40 PM Departs Auburn - - 10:40 AM 3:35 PM - - 6:45 PM 10:10 AM Departs Roseville 7:05 AM 11:10 AM 4:00 PM 5:10 PM 7:10 PM - - Arrives Sacramento 7:55 AM 11:59 AM 4:50 PM 6:00 PM 7:45 PM 11:10 PM Eastbound Greyhound Bus Schedule Bus Route 8304 8310 8314 8326 8328 Departs Sacramento 8:30 AM 9:30 AM 12:05 PM 2:30 PM 7:40 PM Arrives Roseville 9:35 AM 10:20 AM - - 3:20 PM 8:30 PM Arrives Auburn 9:45 AM - - - - 3:50 PM 9:00 PM Arrives Colfax 10:00 AM - - 1:15 PM 4:15 PM 9:25 PM

on Saturday (Saturday service does not include the early morning departures). The base fare is $1.00 per trip, $2.00 for all-day service or $20.00 for a monthly pass. Gold Country Stage is currently considering fare increases on these two regional routes.

Sacramento Regional Transit

Sacramento Regional Transit (RT) mainly serves the greater Sacramento area, however, buses stop at the border of Roseville and Sacramento County at the Louis and Orlando bus stop in Roseville to connect with Roseville Urban Shuttle and Placer County Transit. Two routes provide connections at this location. The first is RT Route 91, operating Monday through Friday from 6:49 A.M. to 10:19 P.M. and Saturday and Sunday from 9:50 A.M. to 6:21 P.M. Service on this route is provided hourly. RT Route 103 provides peak hour commute service to the Watt / I-80 light rail station. Route 103 provides morning service at the Louis and Orlando bus stop at 6:02 A.M., 6:32 A.M., 6:47 A.M. and 7:02 A.M., and evening service is provided at 4:48 P.M., 5:18 P.M., 5:48 P.M. and 6:18 P.M. All Sacramento RT buses are wheelchair-accessible, and base fares are $1.25 per trip, $3.50 per day and $60.00 per month. Discounted fares are $0.75 per ride, $1.75 per day and $30.00 per month.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 3, Page 98 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Chapter 4 Transit Demand Analysis

A key step in developing transit plans is a careful analysis of the mobility needs of various segments of the population and the potential demand for transit services. There are several factors that affect demand, not all of which can be forecast. However, as demand estimation is an important task in developing any transportation plan, several methods of estimation have been developed in the transit field.

This chapter presents an analysis of the potential demand for transit services in the western portion of Placer County, based on standard estimation techniques. The transit demand identified in this section is utilized in the evaluation of transit service alternatives in a later chapter. First, an estimate was developed of the total demand for transit trips by all residents of the study area. This estimate was developed through an analysis by total transit modal split. Second, transit demand was estimated for five categories:

Employee demand, Demand by elderly persons and persons with disabilities., General public non-work demand (including demand by youth under age 18), Commuter demand, and College student demand.

These methodologies yield estimates of the potential transit demand that could be expected given an extremely high level of transit service. The estimates represent an “upper bound” for an idealized transit service that could serve all of the needs of the community. In reality, no service can efficiently serve one hundred percent of this potential demand.

Two methods that are commonly accepted in the transit community to estimate total potential transit demand are analysis by observed total transit modal split and analysis by vehicle availability. Due to the characteristics of the study area, analysis by total transit modal split was utilized to estimate potential transit demand in Western Placer County.

Analysis by total transit modal split relies on the 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 (for new service) and 1.2 percent of all trips are made on public transit where it is available, and that each person makes an average of 3.5 one-way trips per day. Considering the demographic characteristics of the community, a feasible potential transit modal split for the study area is estimated at 1.0 percent. Thus, as presented by census tract in Table 55, the year 2005 general public demand by modal split for the urban area can be estimated at 2,575,077 annual one-way transit trips:

288,524 persons H 255 days/year H 3.5 trips/day = 257,507,670 person-trips per year 257,507,670 H 1.0% = 2,575,077 annual one-way transit passenger-trips per year

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 4, Page 1

(2) Demand (1) 32,961 112,848 37,744 91,044 26,128 70,262 34,022 88,652 38,935 96,555 43,375 123,102 48,610 115,342 47,333 138,341 52,578 138,463 63,111 163,062 52,943 155,205 44,727 110,656 54,015 159,437 165,221 435,407 206,719 533,428 116,257 364,488 151,202 431,920 270,978 733,721 Demand 25,802 14,841 11,506 16,818 13,789 25,187 17,688 39,631 32,927 38,307 28,078 20,695 46,354 Elderly General Public Commuter Total Non Commuter Demand by Segment 15,365 38,721 77,020 72,593 120,573 17,595 20,864 12,180 20,448 15,860 21,952 18,150 25,680 20,220 34,320 22,660 26,384 22,065 29,312 96,365 84,097 146,246 24,510 28,448 29,420 32,224 54,195 78,593 115,443 24,680 49,505 20,850 24,384 70,485 99,201 111,032 25,180 33,888 693,120 914,733 967,224 1,486,859 4,061,936 126,320 194,115 142,309 Estimated Annual Potential Demand for One-Way Transit Trips 79,888 53,300 44,134 54,630 57,620 79,727 66,732 91,008 85,885 99,951 65,929 270,187 326,709 248,231 102,263 280,718 105,422 462,743 2,575,077 Transit Mode Split Employee and Disabled Non-Work Total Non-Commuter Demand Estimated by (3) Total Study Area 202 Auburn/East Placer 203 Auburn/East Placer 204 Auburn/East Placer 205 Auburn/East Placer 206 Granite Bay 220 Northeast Placer/Colfax 207 Roseville/South Placer 218 Clipper Gap/East Placer 219 Meadow Vista/East Placer 208 Roseville/South Placer 213 Lincoln/West Placer 215 Bowman/East Placer 216 West Placer 212 Loomis/Penryn 214 Lincoln/West Placer 209 Roseville/South Placer 210 Roseville/South Placer 211 Rocklin/West Placer TABLE 55: Estimated Potential Transit Demand by Census Tract in 2005 Western Placer County, California Census Tract and Description Note 1: Total commuter demand is allocated to census tracts by the proportion of 2000 residents employed outside home tract. Note 2: Total demand equals non-commuter plus commuter demand. Note 3: Placer County west of the Sierra Nevada crest

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 4, Page 2 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Of this total demand, the largest segment (18.0 percent) is in the Roseville/South Placer area (census tract 210). Other areas with high demand include 12.7 percent in the Rocklin / West Placer area (census tract 211), followed by the Roseville / South Placer area (census tract 207) with 10.9 percent and the Granite Bay area (census tract 206) with 10.5 percent.

TOTAL NON-COMMUTER DEMAND BY SEGMENT

The transit demand in the study area, excluding commuter demand, was estimated to total 2,575,077 one-way trips in 2005, as described above. This demand was segmented into “markets,” as described below.

Employee Transit Demand

Nationally, 1.8 to 2.5 percent of a community’s employees use transit where it is available. Considering the dispersion of employment in the urban areas, it can be expected that work transit mode split in the Western Placer County area would be a lower percentage. Thus, it is assumed that 1.0 percent is a reasonable work trip transit mode split. Typically, each employee makes two trips approximately 250 days per year. As shown by census tract in Table 55 above, based on an estimated 138,624 residents employed in the study area in 2005, this equates to:

138,624 H 2 H 250 = 69,312,000 total annual one-way person trips 69,312,000 H 1.0% = 693,120 annual one-way transit trips

Elderly and Disabled Transit Demand

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:

Elderly & Disabled Trips per Year = Elderly and Disabled Population H ((25 Percent Mobility Limited H 5.2 trips per week) + (5 Percent Homebound H 1.4 trips per week)) H 25 percent by transit mode H 51 weeks/year

The 2005 elderly and disabled population of Western Placer County is estimated at 50,594 elderly persons and 6,576 persons with a mobility limitation. In order to account for double counting of persons who are both elderly and mobility limited, a factor of 8.4 percent (the actual total percentage of persons who are classified within both categories in Western Placer County) was subtracted to get an adjusted total population. Applying the adjusted total population of 52,368 persons, this equation yields a total demand of 914,733 for transit trips per year by elderly persons and persons with disabilities. This demand is presented in Table 55 above by census tract.

Another segment of non-commuter demand is general public non-work demand (including demand by youth under age 18). This segment includes those non-elderly and non-disabled residents using transit for activities other than work, such as shopping and recreation. Subtracting the total employee demand and the total demand by elderly persons and persons with

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 4, Page 3 disabilities from the estimated total non-commuter demand (as estimated by mode split methodology) gives an estimated general-public non-work demand of 967,224 annual one-way transit trips, as shown above in Table 55 by census tract. In certain census tracts the calculation of general public non-work transit demand results in a negative number. These negative numbers represent adjustments to the total demand estimate. However, the total demand shown represents a reasonable estimate by census tract.

The final element of the total demand for transit services that can be allocated to census tracts is the demand for commuter services. This element of demand, which is particularly important in the Interstate 80 corridor, has become an important market for other transit systems.

One quantitative source on which to base an analysis of commuter demand is the 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation. For this analysis, the 2000 data was factored using year 2005 employment figures, as estimated from SACOG projections for Western Placer County by location. As presented in Table 56, the total number of employed Western Placer County residents in the year 2000 is estimated at 142,646. Of these persons, an estimated 59.7 percent (85,231 persons) are employed within Placer County. The table also shows the residence of persons who are employed in Placer County. As shown in the table, Western Placer County is the workplace for an estimated 140,424 employees, of which the same 85,231 persons (60.7 percent) are also residents of Placer County.

The counties which surround Western Placer County constitute a feasible potential commuter market. These include El Dorado County, Nevada County, Sacramento County, Sutter County and Yuba County. For the year 2005, an estimated 41,847 residents of Placer County commute into this area, which could potentially be served by transit. An estimated 51,279 residents of surrounding counties commute into Placer County. Thus, the total Western Placer County commuter market amounts to 99,124 persons.

In evaluating a reasonable maximum commuter mode split for Western Placer County transit services, it is necessary to consider those factors which impact the feasibility of transit service in the Placer County commuter market. The relatively long travel distance to downtown Sacramento would tend to increase the potential for commuter transit services, which best serve longer trips. In addition, the strong concentration of employment in downtown areas increases the viability of effective transit service. In light of these facts and observed transit commuter mode split in other, similar, areas, a maximum feasible mode split of 3.0 percent of all commuter travel is appropriate. Typically, each employee makes two trips approximately 250 days per year; thus, the 99,124 commuters in year 2005 will make a total of approximately 49,562,000 commuter trips per year. Applying the 3.0 percent mode split suggests a total commuter demand for transit trips on the order of 1,486,859 one-way transit passenger-trips per year, as is presented by census tract in Table 55 above.

99,124H 2 H 250 = 49,562,000 total annual one-way person trips 49,562,000 H 3.0% = 1,486,859 annual one-way transit trips

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 4, Page 4 Short Range Transit Plan Update

TABLE 56: Placer County Commuters

Number Percent Commuters Residing in Placer County By Workplace 2000 Employment (1) Residence Workplace Placer County Placer County 69,554 59.7% Placer County El Dorado County 872 0.7% Placer County Nevada County 1,877 1.6% Placer County Sacramento County 35,458 30.5% Placer County Sutter County 273 0.2% Placer County Yuba County 565 0.5% Subtotal Counties Within Reasonable Distance to Provide Transit 39,045 33.5% Placer County Counties Within California (Not Including Those Within Reasonable Distance) 6,316 5.4% Placer County Areas Outside California 1,494 1.3% Total Placer County Employment, Year 2000 116,409 100%

2005 Employment (2) Residence Workplace Placer County Placer County 85,231 59.7% Placer County El Dorado County 1,069 0.7% Placer County Nevada County 2,300 1.6% Placer County Sacramento County 43,450 30.5% Placer County Sutter County 335 0.2% Placer County Yuba County 692 0.5% Subtotal Counties Within Reasonable Distance to Provide Transit 47,845 33.5% Placer County Counties Within California (Not Including Those Within Reasonable Distance) 7,740 5.4% Placer County Areas Outside California 1,831 1.3% Total Western Placer County Employment, Year 2005 (3) 142,646 100% Commuters Working in Placer County By Residence 2000 Employment Workplace Residence Placer County Placer County 69,554 60.7% Placer County El Dorado County 3,663 3.2% Placer County Nevada County 5,215 4.6% Placer County Sacramento County 29,788 26.0% Placer County Sutter County 1,487 1.3% Placer County Yuba County 1,694 1.5% Subtotal Counties Within Reasonable Distance to Provide Transit 41,847 36.5% Placer County Counties Within California (Not Including Those Within Reasonable Distance) 2,530 2.2% Placer County Areas Outside California 665 0.6% Total Employed in Placer County, Year 2000 114,596 100%

2005 Employment (4) Workplace Residence Placer County Placer County 85,231 60.7% Placer County El Dorado County 4,489 3.2% Placer County Nevada County 6,390 4.6% Placer County Sacramento County 36,502 26.0% Placer County Sutter County 1,822 1.3% Placer County Yuba County 2,076 1.5% Subtotal Counties Within Reasonable Distance to Provide Transit 51,279 36.5% Placer County Counties Within California (Not Including Those Within Reasonable Distance) 3,100 2.2% Placer County Areas Outside California 815 0.6% Total Employed in Western Placer County, Year 2005 (3) 140,424 100%

Total Year 2005 Commuters Within Feasible Service Area (5) 99,124

Note 1: From 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package Note 2: SACOG projections for Western Placer County Note 3: West of the Sierra Nevada Crest Note 4: Based on a factor of 1.23 Note 5: Includes Placer County residents commuting out of county and out-of-county residents commuting into Placer County.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 4, Page 5

The presence of a college is a “special generator” of transit ridership; thus, a separate estimate was developed for transit demand by the student population of Sierra Community College. Given the data available, it was not possible to accurately estimate this demand by census tract; however, an estimate of total college demand in the study area was developed. Data concerning transit ridership at several other colleges were analyzed to estimate the average number of transit trips per full-time student. The average trip rate at the other colleges, 13.83 one-way trips per- year per-student, was utilized to estimate potential demand by Sierra College students. According to the college, enrollment during the Fall of 2002 was equal to 7,316 full-time equivalent (FTE) students. Thus, it was estimated that the annual potential transit demand by college students totals 101,180 one-way trips (397 average daily one-way trips), as follows:

College Demand = Number of FTE students H Average Observed Daily Trip Rate = 7,316H 13.83 = 101,180 Annual One-Way Transit Passenger-Trips

SUMMARY OF DEMAND

Potential transit demand in 2005 by census tract, as discussed above and presented in Figure 40, is estimated to total 4,061,936 one-way passenger-trips. When the college student demand for the total study area is added to the demand by census tract, total transit demand in the study area is estimated to equal 4,163,116 one-way transit passenger-trips.

Estimated commuter demand comprises 35.7 percent of the total. General public non-work demand accounts for 23.2 percent, demand by elderly persons and persons with disabilities for 22.0 percent, employee demand for 16.6 percent, and demand by college students for 2.4 percent of the total.

It should be emphasized, however, that these numbers represent a maximum potential under optimal service conditions throughout the area. It is not feasible to expect that the transit system could ever approach this level of service. The need for any specific transit alternative is a function of cost and travel time on transit versus that of other modes. The estimated transit ridership for the various alternatives is identified in the discussion of those alternatives in a later chapter of this document.

EXISTING WESTERN PLACER COUNTY COMMUTE PATTERNS

An important consideration in transit planning is the quantity and pattern of commuting among residents and persons employed in Placer County. The SACMET transportation model, developed and maintained by SACOG provides data regarding home-to-work person-trips throughout the six-county Sacramento Region, based upon a system of 96 Regional Analysis Districts (RADs). For purposes of this study, this data has been summarized into a total of 12 districts (plus an additional district representing commuting outside of the six-county region).

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 4, Page 6 Short Range Transit Plan Update

2,000,000 1,486,859 1,500,000 967,224 914,733 1,000,000 693,120 500,000 Total Potential Annual One-Way Passenger-Trips FIGURE 40: Western Placer County Transit Demand by Segment in 2005 101,180 0 College Employee Commuter Elderly & Disabled General Public Non-Work

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 4, Page 7

The number of existing (2002) modeled home-to-work trips between each of these various districts is presented in Table 57 and Figure 41. A review of this data reveals the following:

Approximately 66.3 percent of employed residents of Western Placer County work within the area (38.2 percent in the Roseville / South Placer area, 17.4 percent in the Auburn / East Placer area, and 10.7 percent in the Lincoln / West Placer area).

Of the 33.7 percent of Placer County residents commuting out of the county, 8.8 percent commute to Carmichael / Fair Oaks / Citrus Heights / Orangevale area, 8.2 percent travel to Central Sacramento, and 3.4 percent have Downtown Sacramento destinations for work.

Approximately 10.2 percent of Roseville / South Placer residents work in the Carmichael / Fair Oaks / Citrus Heights / Orangevale area (11,945 trips) and 16.6 percent commute to Central Sacramento (10,972 trips). These proportions for both destinations drop to 10.8 percent for Lincoln / West Placer residents (around 2018 trips), and to 4.0 percent for Auburn / East Placer residents (around 1,209 trips).

Only approximately 9.7 percent of Roseville / South Placer residents commute eastward along Interstate 80 to work locations in the other two sections of Western Placer County. However, 19.6 percent of residents living in Lincoln and Auburn areas work in the Roseville area.

Out of the total commute trips made by Western Placer County employees, 33.7 percent commute from other counties. The highest proportions of inbound commuters live in Carmichael, Fair Oaks, Citrus Heights, Orangevale (21.3 percent). In general, a similar number of commutes are made into Placer County as that go out of the county.

Commuting between Western Placer County and the suburban areas along US 50 east of Sacramento is relatively minor: 4.5 percent of employed Western Placer county residents work in Rancho Cordova and Folsom, while roughly 3.0 percent of Western Placer County employees travel from the US 50 corridor.

About 3.1 percent of Western Placer County residents commute to Yolo, Sutter, or El Dorado County, and almost 4.5 percent of Placer employees come from El Dorado County.

FUTURE TRENDS IN COMMUTING

The SACMET model also provides forecasts for regional commuting patterns for 2005. These forecasts of daily commute trips are provided in Table 58. A review of the 2002 versus 2005 data indicates the following:

From 2002 to 2005 there is expected to be an 18.5 percent increase of Western Placer County residents working in their home county; 18.7 percent more will commute to Roseville / South Placer, 8.2 percent will commute to Auburn / East Placer, and 34.3 percent more Western Placer County residents will commute to Lincoln / West Placer.

By 2005 the proportion of Western Placer County residents commuting outside of the county is expected to decrease to 31.3 percent. Carmichael / Fair Oaks / Citrus Heights / Orangevale

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 4, Page 8 Short Range Transit Plan Update

TABLE 57: Estimated 2002 Total Home-Based Work Person-Trip Interchange in the Sacramento Region

Subarea of Employment

Subtotal: Percent Placer Placer County Employees Subarea of Residence 123456 78910 11 12 13 Total County Residing in Zone

1 Downtown Sacramento 9,979 8,412 1,071 414 68 357 188 7 5 1,838 3 13 180 22,535 200 0.1%

2 Other Central Sacramento 63,616 189,314 23,518 13,194 1,623 12,111 4,958 293 316 20,353 78 469 5,691 335,534 5,567 3.2%

3 Rancho Cordova 6,659 17,295 36,713 3,461 1,565 1,060 1,422 67 91 1,846 3 486 399 71,067 1,580 0.9%

Carmichael, Fair Oaks, Citrus Hts, 4 18,154 50,407 25,927 72,752 6,692 4,477 33,185 1,655 2,001 7,219 149 1,598 1,355 225,571 36,841 21.3% Orangevale

5 Folsom 1,350 3,398 7,058 3,278 12,434 329 3,001 207 352 434 5 1,865 166 33,877 3,560 2.1%

6 Other Sacramento County 14,539 41,405 10,655 3,722 959 25,944 1,796 123 105 5,933 51 426 13,990 119,648 2,024 1.2%

7 South Placer 4,536 10,972 5,902 11,945 2,711 1,288 59,612 3,157 3,271 2,046 126 705 927 107,198 66,040 38.2%

8 West Placer 835 2,018 1,068 1,968 577 234 9,762 6,226 2,607 394 62 191 1,266 27,208 18,595 10.7%

9 Auburn/East Placer 443 1,209 677 1,227 428 89 4,747 1,178 24,120 191 10 398 3,855 38,572 30,045 17.4%

10 Yolo County 12,861 13,190 2,126 1,173 131 2,711 528 46 25 58,556 28 31 15,281 106,687 599 0.3%

11 Sutter County 276 390 46 88 6 117 192 129 17 163 44 1 335 1,804 338 0.2%

12 El Dorado County 1,731 4,307 9,256 2,502 5,901 423 2,850 303 2,040 536 2 41,875 3,528 75,254 5,193 3.0%

13 External to Sac Region 6,384 12,743 2,736 1,348 387 7,015 2,790 1,484 5,689 21,326 286 1,401 0 63,589 9,963 5.8%

Total 141,363 355,060 126,753 117,072 33,482 56,155 125,031 14,875 40,639 120,835 847 49,459 46,973 1,228,544 180,545 104.4%

Subtotal: Placer County 5,814 14,199 7,647 15,140 3,716 1,611 74,121 10,561 29,998 2,631 198 1,294 6,048 172,978 114,680 66.3%

Percent of Placer County Residents 3.4% 8.2% 4.4% 8.8% 2.1% 0.9% 42.8% 6.1% 17.3% 1.5% 0.1% 0.7% 3.5% 100% 66.3% Working in Zone

Note: Data in bold represent Placer County subareas. Source: SACOG SACMET Model of Placer, Sacramento, El Dorado and Yolo Counties.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 4, Page 9

TABLE 58: Estimated 2005 Total Home-Based Work Person-Trip Interchange in the Sacramento Region

Subarea of Employment

Subtotal: Percent Placer Placer County Employees Subarea of Residence 123456 78910 11 12 13 Total County Residing in Zone

1 Downtown Sacramento 10,891 8,620 1,092 443 71 443 200 9 9 2,031 3 16 186 24,014 218 0.1%

2 Other Central Sacramento 69,744 188,862 22,816 13,130 1,703 14,832 5,105 328 311 21,287 87 504 5,481 344,190 5,744 2.9%

3 Rancho Cordova 7,342 17,897 37,639 3,586 1,720 1,233 1,456 76 78 1,995 5 547 404 73,978 1,610 0.8%

Carmichael, Fair Oaks, Citrus Hts, 4 18,154 48,922 27,067 73,368 7,716 4,966 34,570 1,796 1,887 7,357 152 1,713 1,346 229,014 38,253 19.4% Orangevale

5 Folsom 1,568 3,714 8,248 3,407 14,747 387 2,917 204 287 481 2 2,299 175 38,436 3,408 1.7%

6 Other Sacramento County 17,341 49,554 11,995 4,329 1,166 35,429 2,082 153 101 7,442 65 480 15,431 145,568 2,336 1.2%

7 South Placer 4,519 11,642 6,121 12,867 2,839 1,516 70,692 4,130 3,569 2,188 142 685 1,028 121,938 78,391 39.7%

8 West Placer 849 2,334 1,119 2,313 611 306 13,115 8,604 3,245 457 84 186 1,452 34,675 24,964 12.6%

9 Auburn/East Placer 401 1,190 576 1,219 377 95 5,280 1,399 25,838 198 11 352 4,132 41,068 32,517 16.4%

10 Yolo County 14,270 13,882 2,155 1,170 158 3,095 553 33 31 64,000 21 35 16,136 115,539 617 0.3%

11 Sutter County 244 407 45 92 5 143 218 151 22 173 54 1 324 1,879 391 0.2%

12 El Dorado County 1,637 4,023 9,091 2,425 6,588 501 2,615 296 1,947 517 2 47,245 3,528 80,415 4,858 2.5%

13 External to Sac Region 6,761 13,158 2,644 1,377 399 8,294 3,343 1,663 6,022 22,685 301 1,243 0 67,890 11,028 5.6%

Total 153,721 364,205 130,608 119,726 38,100 71,240 142,146 18,842 43,347 130,811 929 55,306 49,623 1,318,604 204,335 103.4%

Subtotal: Placer County 5,769 15,166 7,816 16,399 3,827 1,917 89,087 14,133 32,652 2,843 237 1,223 6,612 197,681 135,872 68.7%

Percent of Placer County Residents 2.9% 7.7% 4.0% 8.3% 1.9% 1.0% 45.1% 7.1% 16.5% 1.4% 0.1% 0.6% 3.3% 100% 68.7% Working in Zone

Note: Data in bold represent Placer County subareas. Source: SACOG SACMET Model of Placer, Sacramento, El Dorado and Yolo Counties.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 4, Page 10 Short Range Transit Plan Update

50% 40% 30% Placer Resident's Employment Zone Percent of Total 20% 10% Placer Employee's Residence Zone 0% Commute Patterns in 2005 FIGURE 41: Western Placer County Folsom West Placer Yolo County South Placer Sutter County Rancho Cordova El Dorado County Auburn/East Placer External to Sac Region Downtown Sacramento Other Sacramento County Other Central Sacramento Carmichael, Fair Oaks, Citrus Hts, Orangevale

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 4, Page 11

area will still draw the largest percentage (8.3 percent) of Western Placer County workers followed by Central Sacramento (7.7 percent).

Although proportions of Roseville / South Placer residents commuting to the Carmichael / Fair Oaks / Citrus Heights / Orangevale area and Central Sacramento are expected to remain the same through 2005, the number of trips will increase to 12,867 daily trips for the Carmichael area and 11,642 daily trips for the Central Sacramento area. The number of trips will also increase slightly for commuters from Lincoln / West Placer and Auburn East Placer to the greater Sacramento area as well.

As Roseville continues to employ the largest amount of Western Placer County residents through 2005, 1,271 more daily trips will be made east on I-80 to the East and West Placer areas from the Roseville / South Placer area.

In 2005, a slightly smaller percentage (31.3 percent) of commute trips for Western Placer County employees will be made by out of county residents. The Carmichael/ Fair Oaks / Citrus Heights / Orangevale area still represents the largest percentage of inbound commuters (19.4 percent).

The number of commuter trips from Western Placer County to the Rancho Cordova and Folsom areas are expected to increase by 2.2 percent and 3.0 percent respectively. Although trips from Rancho Cordova to Western Placer County are expected to increase by 1.9 percent, the number of trips originating in the Folsom area is expected to decrease by 7.1 percent.

MET VERSUS UNMET NEEDS

The following are unmet needs for Western Placer County transit systems as recently suggested by the public and analyzed by the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency.

Service Hours and Routes

Extended service hours during early morning hours, evenings, and weekends on Placer County Transit routes in the Auburn area.

Extend Lincoln Transit hours to weekends and routes to include Sun City.

Increase vehicle service hours for South Placer Dial-A-Ride in Rocklin, as it is typically booked by students.

Extend the South Placer Dial-a-Ride to Crest Park to serve Valley View high school and the surrounding neighborhood.

Increase Roseville service hours during early mornings, evenings, and weekends to coincide with Capitol Corridor trains as well as early hours to serve the high school. Provide bus service along Diamond Oaks Road, for new subdivisions at Junction and Baseline and new route connections to Light Rail and / or Highway 50.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 4, Page 12 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Regional Connections

Roseville route connections to Light Rail and / or Highway 50

Provide commuter bus service from Colfax to Sacramento and Lincoln to Sacramento

Provide a connection between Yuba Sutter Transit and PCT in Lincoln.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 4, Page 13

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 4, Page 14 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Chapter 5 Regionwide Transit Goals and Standards

The following goals, objectives and standards are designed to be consistent across all public transit providers in western Placer County. Five major goals are identified: a service efficiency goal, a service effectiveness goal, a service quality goal, an accessibility goal, and a planning and management goal. When appropriate, differing standards are provided for differing types of services (i.e., regional, community, rural, and demand-response). Standards are provided as appropriate, based upon observed performance of similar transit systems in California, as well as the existing performance of western Placer County transit services. The goals, objectives, and standards are presented in Table 59 below.

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 year and a favorable trend is maintained.)

Regional Commuter Services

These standards apply to the Placer County Transit (PCT) Auburn-Light Rail and Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College commuter services, as well as Roseville commuter services.

Farebox Recovery Ratio Standard – The ratio of farebox income to operating costs should meet or exceed 15 percent for general public services, and 75 percent for Roseville Commuter services to Sacramento.

Subsidy Standard – The public operation/administrative subsidy per passenger-trip for service should not exceed $3.00, based on both industry standards and existing transit system goals. This standard should be adjusted annually to account for inflation.

Intra-Community Services

These standards apply to the following services: Auburn Transit deviated fixed-route services, Lincoln Transit fixed-route services, Roseville fixed-route services, and the PCT Highway 49 fixed-route.

Farebox Recovery Ratio Standard – The ratio of farebox income to operating costs should meet or exceed 10 percent for providers with service having a population less than 50,000, and 15 percent for providers serving areas of larger population (including Roseville).

Deviation Standard – To limit the operating costs associated with service to any one passenger, off-route deviations should not exceed ¾-mile in one-way length.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 5, Page 1

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A Yes Possible Not Reported Denials, Attempt No Pattern of ADA Reschedule Where No No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 60 Minutes 3 Trips/Day Service Headway Standard (Minimum) Trip Denial Standard 1% 1% 1% 1% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (Maximum) Missed Trips Service Quality Goal N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 95% 95% 95% Routes On-Time Performance 95% for Fixed- Deviated Fixed- Routes, 90% for Standard (Minimum % of Trips On-Time No N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Routes? Standard Centers? Residents? Mile of Fixed- Major Activity Mile of 85% Service Availability Service Within 3/4 Service Within 1/4 8.0 3.0 3.3 3.2 2.7 2.6 3.0 8.0 3.8 6.7 5.8 7.7 7.9 6.3 8.7 8.6 3.5 5.7 6.8 9.9 9.9 2.5 12.9 10.5 13.4 Service Vehicle Service Hour (Minimum) Passenger-Trips per Effectiveness Goal (1) N/A $7.55 $7.91 $6.50 $5.91 $7.56 $4.71 $8.57 $5.77 $6.88 $4.66 $5.20 $7.60 $6.51 $3.90 $4.01 $0.81 $10.88 $12.82 $15.00 $15.47 $13.22 $13.24 $16.61 Standard (Maximum) Operating Subsidy Per Passenger-Trip N/A 4.0% 4.8% 6.5% 4.1% 3.1% 7.7% 9.5% 5.5% Service Efficiency Goal 10.0% Larger Services Commuter Return Ratio 10% Smaller for Roseville Jurisdictions $6.50 15%, Except 75% Operating Farebox Jurisdictions, 15% Standard (Minimum) PCT PCT PCT CTSA CTSA CTSA CTSA Provider Lincoln Transit 9.6% Auburn Transit 7.9% Roseville Transit 10.0% (2) (2) (2) (2) Service y 49 Dial-A-Ride y lor Road Shuttle hwa y g Ta Granite Ba Rocklin-Loomis Service Fiscal Year 2002-03 Results Standard Standard Standard Standard Colfax/Alta Shuttle Lincoln / Rocklin Sierra College PCT Roseville Commuter Services Roseville Transit 79.3% Auburn / Light Rail Auburn Transit Hi Highway 49 Shuttle Roseville Dial-A-Ride Roseville Transit Route R Roseville Transit 8.2% Roseville Transit Route ARoseville Transit Route BRoseville Transit Route CRoseville Transit Route D Roseville TransitRoseville Transit Route E Roseville TransitRoseville Transit Route J Roseville TransitRoseville Transit Route K 7.4% Roseville TransitRoseville Transit Route M 6.3% Roseville Transit 5.7% Roseville Transit 6.6% Roseville Transit 10.6% Roseville Transit 10.3% 9.0% 3.4% Lincoln Transit TABLE 59: Western Placer County Goals and Standards for Transit Service Regional Commuter Services Intra-Community Services Rural Services Demand Response Services Service Note 1: In addition to the farebox recovery ratio and subsidy standards, a 3/4 mile maximum deviation standard is used for deviated fixed-route services. Note 2: The data reported herein for CTSA is from Fiscal Year 2001-02.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 5, Page 2 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Subsidy Standard – The public operation/administrative subsidy per passenger-trip for service should not exceed $6.50 in Fiscal Year 2004-05, based on industry standards and recent experience. This standard should be adjusted annually to account for inflation.

Rural Services

These standards apply to services in Colfax and Granite Bay, as well as along the Taylor Road corridor.

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 shuttle service should not exceed $15.00 in Fiscal Year 2004-05. This is a realistic standard, based on the industry experience and the inherent financial challenges of providing rural service. This standard should be adjusted annually to account for inflation.

Deviation Standard – To limit the operating costs associated with service to any one passenger, off-route deviations should not exceed one mile in one-way length.

SERVICE EFFECTIVENESS GOAL

To maximize the ridership potential of PCT 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 2.0 percent annually for each service component.

Regional Commuter Services

Service Effectiveness Standard – Serve a minimum of 8.0 passenger-trips per vehicle service hour.

Intra-Community Services

Service Effectiveness Standard – Serve a minimum of 8.0 passenger-trips per vehicle service hour.

Rural Services

Service Effectiveness Standard – Serve a minimum of 3.0 passenger-trips per vehicle service hour.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 5, Page 3

Demand Response Services

Service Effectiveness Standard – Serve a minimum of 3.0 passenger-trips per vehicle service hour.

SERVICE QUALITY GOAL

To provide safe, reliable, and convenient transit services.

All Services

Passenger Amenity Standard – Shelter should be provided at all transit stops serving 15 or more passengers per day. Seating should be provided at all transit stops serving five or more passengers per day.

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. In general, agencies should attempt to limit standing loads to a maximum of 20 percent of daily runs.

Regional Connectivity Standard – Reciprocal transfer arrangements should be implemented between all connecting service providers. Local service should be provided within one block of all regional transit transfer locations and intercity bus/rail stops. Passenger facilities should be improved to enhance regional public transportation connections.

Bus Stop Safety Standard – Scheduled stops should only be made at signed locations.

Accident Standard – Maintain a minimum of 50,000 miles between preventable collision accidents, and 25,000 miles between all types of accidents.

Maintenance Standard – Maintain a minimum of 10,000 miles between roadcalls.

Preventive Maintenance Standard – 100 percent of preventative maintenance actions should be completed within 500 miles of schedule.

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.

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

Passenger Complaint Standard – Passenger complaints shall be less than 1 per 5,000 passengers (fixed-route) and less than 1 per 3,000 passengers (demand-response). Management response should be provided to all complaints within one working day.

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

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 5, Page 4 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Regional Commuter Services

Service Availability Standard – Provide transit service to residential areas, employment centers and activity centers that can support commuter service.

On-Time Performance Standard – 95 percent of all trips should be operated “on-time,” defined as not early, and no more than five minutes late.

Missed Trips Standard – The proportion of runs not operated or more than 15 minutes late should be no more than 1.0 percent.

Intra-Community Services

Service Availability Standard – Provide transit service to residential areas, major medical, shopping, government, employment centers and activity centers that can support fixed-route service. The fixed-route system shall be designed such that 85 percent of the population of urbanized areas is within 1/4 mile of a fixed-route or within the service area of a deviated fixed-route or general public dial-a-ride service.

On-Time Performance Standard – 95 percent of all fixed-route trips and 90 percent of all deviated fixed-route trips should be operated “on-time,” defined as not early, and no more than five minutes late.

Missed Trips Standard – The proportion of runs not operated or more than 15 minutes late should be no more than 1.0 percent.

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.

Bus Stop Spacing Standard – Buses should serve approximately four to five bus stops per mile.

Rural Services

On-Time Performance Standard – 95 percent of all trips should be operated “on-time,” defined as not early, and no more than ten minutes late.

Missed Trips Standard – The proportion of runs not operated or more than 15 minutes late should be no more than 1.0 percent.

Deviation Denial Standard – No more than 5.0 percent of requests for deviation service (if provided) should be denied due to vehicle unavailability. Reschedule denied trips where possible.

Service Frequency Standard – Provide scheduled service a minimum of three times per day, on days operated.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 5, Page 5

Demand Response Services

Service Availability Standard – Provide demand response service to all areas within ¾ mile of fixed-route service, per the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

On-Time Performance Standard – 95 percent of all scheduled pick-ups should be provided “on-time,” defined as no more than ten 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 should exist due to vehicle unavailability. Reschedule denied trips where possible.

ACCESSIBILITY GOAL

To provide a transit system which 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 Americans with Disabilities Act.

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.

On-Board Survey Standard – On-board passenger surveys should be conducted as part of the SRTP process, and within six months of implementation of a new service.

TDA 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.”

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 5, Page 6 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Land Use Planning Standard – Development proposals shall be reviewed with the Planning Department to assess the effects of development on transit service, and to encourage land development that is compatible with transit service. In addition, transit staff should be consulted regarding proposed changes in land use ordinances and design standards.

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.

Air Quality Standard – The potential to reduce air quality impacts of public transit operations shall be reviewed on an on-going basis.

Marketing Standard – Marketing efforts shall be conducted to ensure that all service area residents are aware of PCT 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.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 5, Page 7

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 5, Page 8 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Chapter 6 Transit-Friendly Site Design

Land use planning and site design are critical elements in the functioning of any transportation system, whether it be for autos, buses, bicycles, or pedestrians. While land use planning is often associated with governmental entities, it should more appropriately be viewed as the process of setting goals and pursuing them in order to achieve certain desired ends. Private developers often use such words as “access” and “amenities” to describe the way they want their parcels to relate to the rest of the transportation system.

The goal of land use planning as it relates to transportation is to ensure that the “supply” of transportation (the number and size of roads, the frequency of transit service, etc.) is adequate to meet the “demand” (the desired number of trips). Without having a “plan,” a knowledge of what to expect from any given parcel of land, it is very difficult to achieve the balance where supply meets demand. Since governments are being pushed by citizens to be more efficient and frugal with taxpayer money, there is seldom excess supply. Thus, unplanned development results in congestion and more accidents. These conditions compromise all modes of travel, creating a situation where the preferred mode of travel (generally the auto) and many of the alternatives (transit, bicycling, and walking) all fail at the same time.

When considering the effects of land use planning and site design on transit, it is tempting to think of only the transit advocate’s point of view: more buses, fewer cars. In some cases, this point of view may be appropriate, but it is not the only point of view. The cost-conscious taxpayer should consider the argument that land use planning and site design can help minimize the cost of providing essential public transit service. In addition, public transit can play a role in preserving the character of historic downtown areas and reducing the need for costly parking structures.

SITE DESIGN STRATEGIES

In recent years, there has been a strong interest in the planning profession regarding strategies by which urban development can be shaped to maximize the efficiency of alternate transportation modes, particularly transit. This field of study has taken on differing names in various parts of the country. On the East Coast, it is commonly referred to as the “Neo-Traditional Neighborhood Development” movement, championed by academics such as Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and evidenced in such places as Seaside, Florida; Celebration, Florida; and the extensive Kentlands development near Washington, D.C.

In the West, this field of study has been labeled “Transit-Oriented Design” (TOD). The leading figure in this field is Peter Calthorpe, who has been instrumental in the development of the extensive Laguna West project on the southern edge of the Sacramento metropolitan area. There are a number of similarly planned new towns in the San Diego, San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle metropolitan areas.

There are a number of common design strategies that have been identified through this field of planning research. A key element in the design strategies presented below is an acceptance that

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 6, Page 1 automobile use will remain a key part of our transportation system. To that end, the strategies do not strive to eliminate auto traffic; rather, the goal is to make transit and other alternative transportation modes as attractive as possible. Various strategies are discussed below.

Cluster Land Use Densities Close to Major Transit Stops

A vital rule of thumb in transit planning is that the potential for transit ridership drops off dramatically with distance from the nearest transit stop. Research consistently shows that the proportion of persons willing to use transit drops dramatically beyond a one-quarter mile walking distance to the bus stop (a 7.5-minute walk at a speed of two miles per hour). It therefore follows that the more trip origins and destinations that are within approximately one- quarter mile of a major transit stop, the greater the potential for transit usage. Within the constraints of the real estate market and local housing preferences, therefore, there is a benefit in developing zoning classifications and transit services in tandem to ensure that major transit stops are located near the greatest possible number of dwelling units, employment opportunities, and institutional and commercial centers. The Calthorpe school of planners has dubbed this type of land-use cluster a “pedestrian pocket,” defined as “a simple cluster of housing, retail space, and offices within a quarter-mile walking radius of a transit system.”

Other characteristics of a “pedestrian pocket” include a residential density of approximately 12 dwelling units per acre, and commercial development at a floor-to-area ratio (FAR) of at least 0.25. Other studies have found that the recommended minimum densities of development to support public transportation are seven dwelling units per acre for residential developments and a floor-area-to-property-area ratio of 1.0 for commercial and office development (Guidelines for Transit-Sensitive Suburban Land Use Design, US DOT, p. 42: 1991).

Development of Surrounding “Secondary Area”

The secondary area should include those land uses within a one-mile radius of the transit center. This area should contain uses that are more auto-oriented, such as lower-density residential (but with at least six dwelling units per acre), highway commercial uses, schools, and public facilities. Residents in these areas help to support the retail center in the “pedestrian pocket,” and are also conveniently located with respect to drop-off or bicycle access to the transit center. Street networks should be designed to allow access to the transit center without travel on an arterial street. The Town of Breckenridge, Colorado, is a good example of dense development grouped in a higher density pattern within walking distance of the central business district. The shorter blocks with sidewalks are more inviting to pedestrian and bicycle modes of travel than the more dispersed neighborhoods.

Develop Street Network That Allows Efficient Transit Service

In order to reduce traffic volumes near residences and avoid the potential for “cut-through” traffic, traffic and land use planners in the period since World War II have commonly designed residential areas with a curvilinear, disconnected street system. While a bus can be routed along the curvilinear collector or arterial street close to the residences within a subdivision, the walking distance may be excessive because there is no direct access. Connected streets should be provided to permit bus routes into residential neighborhoods.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 6, Page 2 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Provide Convenient Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections to Transit Stops

A key strategy in TOD design is to ensure that transit passengers can quickly access a bus stop from their trip origin and destination. This strategy recognizes the fact that many transit patrons are pedestrians as soon as they leave the bus. To this end, emphasis should be placed on providing direct and attractive pedestrian and bicycle accessways between residential and employment areas and transit stops. This may include pedestrian paths linking cul-de-sacs with nearby transit stops on collector and arterial streets.

Encourage Site Design That Serves Both Auto and Transit Users

Current commercial site design practices typically ensure that auto drivers are provided with a relatively short walk to the front door after parking. The transit passenger, however, is typically dropped off at the street edge and must endure a long walk to and across the parking lot, unprotected from the weather and at risk from auto traffic. Current site design of this type rewards auto use and penalizes transit use. If the site is designed to cluster the commercial uses near major intersections, however, both auto and transit users can be provided with convenient walking access to the site. In addition, the “clusters” formed by this site plan encourage increased walking between buildings for meals, business errands, etc.

Convenient transit access may take the form of setback and parking standards. In addition to minimum setbacks, local ordinances should also specify allowable maximum setbacks adjacent to public transportation corridors. The location of parking facilities within the public transportation corridor should also be addressed. Local ordinances should require that parking be provided at the rear or side of the building. The front of the building should be oriented to the street with a specific allowable maximum setback. This will keep the entrance close to the street and oriented to public transportation and pedestrians.

Other site design issues relate to the geometry of streets, bus turnouts, shelters, and park-and-ride facilities. Streets which will be designated as bus routes must have adequate turning radii at intersections. Bus turnouts should be designed with a pavement composition that resists damage by buses. In addition, bus turnouts should be sited in locations that minimize traffic flow interruptions, especially at intersections, and which maximize pedestrian access. Bus shelters should be placed approximately four to five feet from the curb edge, and should be located where there is efficient pedestrian access and/or neighborhood commercial nodes. When possible, turnouts and shelters should not be sited on major arterials with high travel speeds; a nearby collector should be used instead. Park-and-ride facilities should provide an adequate number of bus berths, easy pedestrian access from the parking lots, and a separation of bus and automobile traffic flows.

Buildings, especially commercial and institutional ones, should be constructed to provide access for transit vehicles. Common examples of such buildings are hospitals and hotels. The access that is needed consists of overhead clearance and pull-through driveways. Without these, the transit vehicle must either stop further from the front door of such buildings, or be at risk backing out of dead-end driveways. Poor vehicle access also contributes to a loss of efficiency.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 6, Page 3

Encourage Mixed Land Uses

Traditionally, zoning districts have been formed to keep differing land uses as far removed from each other as possible, in an effort to eliminate any potential for negative spillover impacts. The end result, however, has been communities where alternatives to the automobile, even for a quick trip to buy a loaf of bread, are very difficult to use. Carefully planned mixed uses, including neighborhood-serving commercial and restaurant space, reduces auto use while providing increased opportunities for transit and pedestrian activity.

Also under the rubric of mixed land uses is the concept of “joint development.” In many cases, the wholesale mixing of land uses is difficult to achieve, either politically or because of existing development. Joint development is a concept which says that businesses and transit agencies can benefit by providing a combination of services and amenities that generate customers for both. These types of arrangements usually occur at bus stops or transit stations/centers. The level of activity at these locations can vary from small, with the provision of newspaper boxes, public telephones, and a cash machine, to extensive retail and service areas serving both transit, employees, and shoppers, with large multiple use projects directly tied into the transit systems.

Example of Transit Oriented Design Development

A comparison of a potential application of TOD concepts versus a typical design, in a newly developing area is presented in Figures 42 and 43. Both of these figures present development plans for a square mile of land along a freeway. Figure 42 presents a “typical” subdivision layout, consisting of a strong arterial system, a series of curvilinear collector roads, and short cul- de-sacs or loop local streets.

A “TOD” alternative is depicted in Figure 43. While the arterial system was assumed to remain constant, collector and local streets are configured into a curved block system. This design serves to disperse traffic more evenly, as well as to provide substantially more convenient walking paths to bus stops. A stronger urban form is provided by centrally-located parks. Transit service is enhanced by providing a street network that allows direct walking paths between nearby residential areas and the transit route, as well as through the development of a “transit center” (which can be little more than an attractive, landscaped shelter) in the commercial area. To provide a direct comparison, very similar transit routes were assumed for the two alternatives. As a comparison of these two figures indicates, the resulting “transit service area” (defined as all residences within a quarter-mile walk of the transit route) is substantially greater for the TOD design than for the typical subdivision design.

Table 60 compares the number of persons within walking distance (¼ mile) of the transit route in the two alternative designs. Overall development density (i.e., average lot size) for single-family housing is equivalent for the two designs. In the TOD alternative, however, smaller single- family lots are clustered within the transit route service area, while larger lots are located in the “outer” portions of the parcel. In addition, all multifamily housing is provided within the transit service area in the TOD alternative. As a result of these strategies, as indicated in the table, the number of residents who would be able to conveniently access transit service would nearly double (a 95 percent increase) with the TOD design compared to the typical subdivision design.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 6, Page 4 Short Range Transit Plan Update

FIGURE 42

Typical Development

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 6, Page 5

FIGURE 43

Transit Oriented Design Development

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 6, Page 6 Short Range Transit Plan Update

TABLE 60: Comparison of Typical and Transit Oriented Design Developments

Typical Development Transit Oriented Design Development Within Outside of Within Outside of Transit Transit Transit Transit Service Area Service Area Total Service Area Service Area Total

Single Family Total Acres 171 539 710 284 426 710 Density (Persons/ Acre) 12.5 12.5 12.5 14.0 11.5 12.5 Total Persons 2,138 6,738 8,875 3,976 4,899 8,875

Multifamily Total Acres 18 28 46 46 - 46 Density (Persons/ Acre) 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 18.0 Total Persons 324 504 828 828 - 828

Total Persons Within Transit Service Area 2,462 4,804

I ncrease in Persons w ithin Transit Service Area Due to TOD Development = 95.2%

Note: Transit service area comprises residences within 1/ 4 mile of a transit route.

Research indicates that this type of development, applied over a large area, can make a significant difference in future traffic conditions. One study conducted in the suburban fringe area of central New Jersey indicated that the forecast growth in travel in a three-county area could be cut roughly in half over a 22-year period through these types of TOD strategies.

Social Service Campus

A final land use-related strategy that can substantially benefit transit services is the development of a regional center or “campus” for social service agencies. A substantial proportion of transit ridership– particularly for the relatively expensive demand-response service–consists of service to social services (e.g., senior day care, job training, community services, unemployment offices). In recognition of this fact, many communities are striving to locate these services within convenient walking distance of each other, both for the convenience of participants who are often involved in more than one program, as well as to provide substantial operating efficiencies to the transit providers. While few location or relocation decisions are made each year, a set strategy of developing such a center can yield strong results over the long term.

APPLYING THE STRATEGIES

Local Policies Supporting Transit

Existing government policies may work for or against transit development and ridership. Existing zoning may disallow the mix of uses, building designs, and densities most suitable for generating transit ridership and for attracting the interest of TOD-oriented developers. In addition, public zoning and building provisions may impede the design of convenient connections between development projects and access points. Standards for setbacks and buffering, restrictions on building heights, and density limits must be addressed to work in

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 6, Page 7 support of a transit-friendly and pedestrian design. Parking standards frequently fail to support transit ridership.

Actions To Be Addressed

As discussed above, land use planning and site design have a strong relationship to transportation demand and travel patterns. Land use and site design decisions play an important role in determining the viability of public transportation and the feasibility of serving portions of the community. In recognition of this important relationship, local actions that may be further addressed to encourage transit use in the community are addressed below:

In the master plan, prioritize new road projects based on how well they serve the goals of in- filling, completing, and maintaining the existing road network in the developed areas.

Encourage in-fill and redevelopment by designating underdeveloped or declining neighborhoods for public investment.

Promote mixed land-use in redevelopment areas.

Adopt transit-oriented development design guidelines.

Recognize transit-friendly planning and design by sponsoring an annual awards program.

Ordinances should specify a maximum setback for buildings fronting transit corridors.

Ordinances should require that parking be provided at the rear or side of buildings, and that the front of the buildings be oriented to the street to encourage walking and the use of public transportation.

Provide comfortable transit facilities and make bus stops attractive through high-quality design and construction and by providing pedestrian amenities such as lighting, seating, and weather protection.

Bus stops should be connected by sidewalks and other paths to residential and commercial development.

Emphasize the provision of pedestrian facilities, as the majority of transit patrons are pedestrians before boarding and after alighting from the bus.

Provide incentives such as density bonuses or reduced parking requirements for developers who design pedestrian-friendly projects.

Incorporate pedestrian-friendly design guidelines in street design manuals for all new developments.

Promote a complete network of sidewalks.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 6, Page 8 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Require all public and private development projects to include sidewalks on both sides of the roads (with the exception of freeways).

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 6, Page 9

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 6, Page 10 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Chapter 7 Types of Transit Service

Before discussing transit service alternatives for western Placer County transit operators, it is worthwhile to discuss the different common types of transit service. In addition to “fixed-route” service (vehicles operating on a strict schedule over a predetermined route), there are a number of alternative transit service types: “route deviation,” “checkpoint deviation,” and “user-side subsidy.” These alternatives are described below.

TRADITIONAL FIXED-ROUTE SERVICE

Fixed-route service fits the popular conception of a bus system – vehicles operating on a predetermined route following a set schedule. Each route consists of a number of specific stops where passengers are picked up and dropped off. Research has found that fixed-route passengers are willing to walk up to a quarter-mile to reach the bus stop; as a result, an efficient fixed-route service pattern usually consists of routes with half-mile spacing. Stops are typically provided every two blocks in urbanized areas.

Fixed-route service is particularly convenient for transit passengers without mobility impairments, such as low-income persons, youth, and the general public. The major advantages of fixed-route service are: the service can be provided at a relatively low per-passenger-trip cost; schedule reliability is relatively high, since buses do not deviate from the route; and service does not require an advance reservation. On the other hand, many persons with a car available for a trip find fixed-route transit service to be relatively unattractive. The need to walk even a few hundred yards to a bus stop, coupled with waiting for the vehicle on an often cold, hot, or rainy street corner, makes the option of a comfortable car an easy choice.

It should be noted that complementary paratransit service is required under the ADA. In short, complementary ADA paratransit service must be offered within a 3/4 mile boundary around each side of the fixed-route during the same days and hours the fixed-route is operated. Transit agencies must accommodate all valid trip requests that were received the prior business day; agencies are allowed to negotiate trips up to one hour on each side of the requested time, to provide on-going subscription rides, and to allow trip requests greater than or less than the prior day requirement.

DEMAND RESPONSE SERVICE

Demand response transit service, also termed “dial-a-ride,” is characterized as curb-to-curb or door-to-door service, scheduled by a dispatcher. A 24-hour advance reservation for service is normally required, though some immediate requests are filled as time permits. Demand response service is most convenient for persons who can schedule their trips in advance. The need to provide origin-to-destination service increases the time required to serve each passenger, which in turn requires a relatively high cost per trip. A standard “productivity” of demand-response service is on the order of three to five passenger-trips per vehicle service hour.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 7, Page 1

The other substantial limitation of demand response service is that, by its very nature, it is less dependable in terms of pick-up and arrival time than traditional fixed-route transit. To maximize productivity, vehicles are optimally dispatched to make several pick-ups in an area before traveling to the requested destinations. Individual passengers must therefore wait on the vehicle while subsequent pick-ups are made. This factor substantially decreases the attractiveness of demand response service to passengers who are time-sensitive, particularly if they have an automobile available.

ROUTE DEVIATION SERVICE

One alternative to demand response service is route deviation or deviated fixed-route service. Transit vehicles follow a specific route, but leave the route to serve demand response origins and destinations. It should be noted that a minimum 3/4 mile deviation must be offered in order to be considered as a demand response service under the ADA, which negates the requirement for complementary paratransit service required for fixed-route services. The vehicles are typically required to return to the designated route within a block of the point of deviation to insure all intersections along the route are served. As with demand response service, passenger on-board travel time is increased, and service reliability is reduced.

CHECKPOINT DEVIATION SERVICE

Under checkpoint deviation service, buses make periodic, scheduled stops at a center of activity such as a residential complex or a shopping center, in addition to a demand response service. Riders are picked up (typically at a reduced fare) at these checkpoints, and carried either to another checkpoint or to a specific demand response destination (again, the minimum 3/4 mile service boundary is required under the ADA to be deemed a demand response service). Service between checkpoints does not require an advance reservation.

Unless carefully crafted, it can be very difficult to dispatch vehicles efficiently under checkpoint service. In addition to serving the demand response passengers not wishing to use the checkpoint service, a dispatcher is required to assure a vehicle is able to serve the checkpoint within a specified period of the scheduled service time. To provide a reasonable amount of flexibility, a more lenient definition of “on time” is typically used for checkpoint service than the standard of “not early and not more than five minutes late” commonly used for fixed-route service. A reasonable policy for checkpoint service would be “not early and not more than ten minutes late.” Even with this policy, the number of demand response requests the checkpoint service can accommodate is substantially reduced from the number a strictly demand-response service can accommodate.

USER-SIDE SUBSIDY

A user-side subsidy program can be implemented to complement or to replace a traditional demand response program. The concept takes advantage of existing private transportation providers and the market process, making transportation affordable and strengthening private companies. User-side subsidy programs are commonly provided for relatively low-volume operations, typical of point-to-point services provided for special user groups (i.e., elderly persons and persons with disabilities). Eligible citizens receive subsidies in the form of coupons or vouchers to purchase transportation services at a discount. The sponsoring agency (city,

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 7, Page 2 Short Range Transit Plan Update county, or other group such as a social service agency) redeems the coupons or vouchers at full value. This ensures that the providers receive full fare for their services.

There are three basic approaches to a user-side subsidy program. One is to sell coupons at a discount through approved outlets. For instance, a book of 20 one-dollar coupons, for use as payment for rides, might sell for $10.00. The second approach is to issue identification cards to eligible users. Upon presentation of the card, the individual pays a fixed price (i.e., $1.00) for the trip, or a variable price based on mileage. The carrier presents a signed voucher to the sponsoring agency for the difference. In the third form, if a taxicab service is used, the user pays a percentage of the metered fare upon presentation of the identification card. In all cases, it is important to establish rigorous controls and monitoring procedures if abuse of the program is a concern.

One mechanism used to prevent overcharging by operators and to simplify the program administration is negotiation of a flat fare system. For example, Lassen County and the City of Susanville, California, negotiated a flat rate with a taxicab company to provide subsidized trips to elderly persons and persons with disabilities for specific trip purposes. Coupons to use the service are available to qualified users for the same price as the Dial-A-Ride service provided by Lassen Rural Bus, the public transit provider in the county. Eligible persons may choose which of the two providers they wish to utilize.

Though user-side subsidy programs cannot be considered commonplace, successful programs are operating in a number of areas, including Minneapolis, Minnesota; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Grand Forks, North Dakota; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; Norfolk, Virginia; Santa Fe, New Mexico; Cheyenne, Wyoming; and Grand Junction, Colorado. Most of these programs have been in existence for over ten years.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 7, Page 3

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 7, Page 4 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Chapter 8 Regional Institutional Alternatives

While coordination between transit services is always important, it is particularly crucial in western Placer County due to the multiplicity of jurisdictions and the strong inter-community trip pattern. Coordination of the transportation services provided by various social service agencies, nursing homes, private providers, schools, and the general public provider has the potential to improve the transportation services available to the public. A general definition of coordination has been interpreted as everything from telephone conversations to transfer of vehicle ownership. There are four phases or levels of coordination with regard to the shared use and efficient operation of equipment and facilities, as follows:

Communication includes recognition and understanding of the problem, and discussion of possible solutions. This improves the working relationships among various bodies that are in a position to influence transportation developments within their particular jurisdiction.

Cooperation involves the active working together of individuals in some loose association in a cooperative way, with individuals or individual agencies retaining their separate identities.

Coordination (in a specific definition) comprises the bringing together of independent agencies to act together in a concerted way, in order to provide for the smooth interaction of separate units of a transportation system. In coordination, the primary concern is in the form of common funds, equipment, facilities, or operations, but members of agencies preserve their identities.

Consolidation encompasses the joining together or merging of agencies for mutual advantage. In this context, consolidation refers to a fully integrated system, where individual agency identity for the purpose of transportation is no longer maintained.

The Best Step Transportation Collaborative was established in 1995to find solutions to transportation problems for residents of western Placer County. The Transportation Collaborative, which includes not-for-profit social service organizations, departments of Placer County, city transit organizations, and private companies, encompasses communication, cooperation, and a degree of coordination. This chapter will look at alternatives for going beyond the start made by the Transportation Collaborative.

If western Placer County jurisdictions wish to increase the coordination of transit services, the identification and implementation of an appropriate institutional structure is critical. Such an entity should exhibit the following characteristics:

It should be able to perform annual pro-active planning to improve the transportation system.

Its actions should be authorized and defensible.

It should limit the exposure of the participants to suits and claims of liability.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 8, Page 1

It should be capable of focusing adequate management resources on transit issues.

It should be able to commit to serve for more than one year at a time.

It should be capable of effectively implementing transit improvements regularly and easily.

The potential advantages and disadvantages of various institutional structures are discussed below. In the next stage of this study, the alternatives will be discussed in detail with the county and the municipalities, resulting in the development of a recommendation regarding the potential implementation of any of the alternatives.

TRANSIT DISTRICT FORMED THROUGH A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT

One option would be to establish a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) to create an independent Transit District to operate or contract for transit services. A Transit District formed though a JPA has the potential to run a transit system very efficiently and effectively in a multi- jurisdictional area such as western Placer County. The membership of the governing board of the Transit District would be established by the intergovernmental agreement between the jurisdictions. The JPA can be written to maintain existing TDA funding allocations, to avoid funding conflicts with non-transit needs. Participating governments would have the right to comment, if they do not agree with a decision regarding funding allocations. There are numerous such Districts established around the state, such as the Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority and the El Dorado County Transit Authority.

It would be necessary to identify a mutually-agreeable transit funding formula, based upon a number of quantifiable factors that relate to the level of benefit provided. This allocation procedure should have the following characteristics:

It should be politically acceptable to all participating jurisdictions.

It should, to the extent possible, reflect the proportion of “benefit” provided to each jurisdiction.

It should be sensitive to changes in ridership patterns.

It should be based upon data that can be collected at a reasonable cost.

Updating the allocation proportions to reflect new data should be a straightforward process, which does not entail re-evaluation of the allocation procedure.

Allocation could be based on one or more of the following criteria:

Total population.

Population within the transit service area.

Passenger boardings by jurisdiction.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 8, Page 2 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Vehicle service hours by jurisdiction.

Passenger-miles generated by passengers boarding in each jurisdiction.

Total taxable retail sales.

Employment.

The potential advantages of a Transit District include the following:

It would provide a full-time administrative position for transit management.

The costs associated with administration of transit services by individual jurisdictions would be reduced, due to the reduction in duplication of effort.

A Transit District would increase the stability of transit finances, as transit would be insulated from the budget process of the jurisdictions.

It would allow individual governments to focus upon other issues.

Existing transit staff could convert from employment with the jurisdictions to employment with the Transit District.

The Transit District would have the ability to purchase supplies and services outside of the procurement process of the jurisdictions, potentially resulting in additional cost savings.

Potential disadvantages of such an alternative include the following:

Difficulties in coming to an agreement among all of the jurisdictions involved.

One-time Transit District formation costs would be incurred.

Loss of year-to-year control of TDA funds by individual jurisdictions.

Changes in employment status could raise issues regarding salary rates, seniority, and benefits.

REGIONAL TRANSIT COORDINATING COMMITTEE

One alternative to ensure effective scheduling of vehicles and efficient use of available resources, but without requiring the creation of a separate Transit District to operate services, would be creation of a Regional Transit Coordinating Committee. The PCTPA would be designated as the “lead agency” for such a Committee. The Committee would be made up of representatives from each transit service provider operating in the area (both public and private) and of each local government. The scope of the Committee would go beyond that of the existing Transit Operators Working Group, and the Committee would be formally responsible for the

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 8, Page 3 coordination of transit services. The Committee would meet on a regularly-scheduled basis to discuss and evaluate considerations such as proposed schedules, fares, ridership demands, costs and service problems. The dialogue established through the Committee would help to ensure that services are being provided by the most appropriate agency, that passenger transfers between the various systems are as convenient as possible, and that public funds in the governing area are used as efficiently as possible. Specific projects for such a Committee could include the following:

Regular updates of the regional transit map developed by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). This document displays the public transportation services available in the region, including not only western Placer County communities but other connecting communities as well (such as Nevada City/Grass Valley, Sacramento, and Folsom).

Coordination of regional public transit systems to provide timed connections at all transfer points.

Joint training of transit employees, particularly for specialized training such as passenger assistance techniques. The Committee would identify training needs by agency, and determine how such training might be accomplished.

These are the following potential advantages to such a Committee:

Provide opportunities for increased efficiency and effectiveness of regional transit services without the necessity of the expense that would be associated with setting up a Transit District.

Avoid the need for the lengthy and difficult process of arriving at agreement among the various jurisdictions on the terms of a JPA to govern a Transit District.

Relatively low-cost method of improving transit services in the region.

Avoids difficult personnel and JPA formation issues.

A Coordinating Committee has the following potential disadvantages:

A Coordinating Committee would be primarily an advisory group, without the power to independently implement transit improvements.

It may be difficult to encourage all of the jurisdictions and providers to attend Committee meetings and to participate on a regular basis.

COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

A third alternative would be for an existing board, such as the Placer County Board of Supervisors, to serve in lieu of a Transit District. TDA legislation requires the allocation of funds to each jurisdiction, and, thus, this alternative would require western Placer County municipalities to hand over control of their TDA allocations to the Board. It is not realistic to

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 8, Page 4 Short Range Transit Plan Update expect that the municipalities would agree to such an arrangement. In addition, it is very doubtful that the Board of Supervisors, with their busy schedule and limited availability, would focus adequate attention on transit issues. For these reasons, this alternative does not appear to be feasible.

FARE LEVELS

As presented in Table 61 below, the fare structures used by the transit agencies in western Placer County vary considerably within the region, and in comparison to other similar transit programs in California. This difference in regional fare levels can be a barrier to riding, particularly if riders must pay differing fares for the different legs of their trip. The fare charged by each transit agency in western Placer County will be evaluated in each provider’s respective chapter below. In addition, this table depicts the overall percentage discount provided by the monthly passes, based on two roundtrips per day and an average of 20 service days per month. As presented, the discounts provided by the PCT, Auburn Transit and Lincoln Transit monthly pass programs are significantly higher than those provided by other similar transit agencies.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 8, Page 5

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 8, Page 6 Short Range Transit Plan Update

TABLE 61: California Transit Systems Fare Review

Single-Ride Day Pass Monthly Pass Discount (Monthly Pass) Elderly/ Elderly/ Elderly/ Elderly/ Provider Regular Express Youth Disabled Regular Express Youth Disabled Regular Express Youth Disabled Regular Express Youth Disabled

VTA (Santa Clara County) $1.50 $3.00 $1.25 $0.75 $4.50 $9.00 $3.75 $1.75 $52.50 $90.00 $30.00 $17.50 25.7% 46.7% 83.3% 88.6%

Fresno Area Express $1.00 – – $0.35 – – – – $35.00 – – $10.00 25.7% – – 54.0%

Sacramento RT $1.50 – $0.75 $0.75 $3.50 – $1.75 $1.75 $60.00 – $15.00 $30.00 10.0% – 120.0% 10.0%

Vacaville City Coach $1.00 – $0.75 $0.50 $29.00 – $18.00 $16.00 51.7% – – –

Yolobus $1.50 $2.00 $0.75 $0.60 $3.50 $4.00 $1.75 $1.75 $60.00 $80.00 $15.00 $30.00 10.0% – 120.0% -12.0%

Unitrans (Davis) $0.75 – – $0.25 – – – – $21.00 – – – 57.1% – – –

Yuba-Sutter Transit $1.00 $3.00 $0.50 $0.50 – – – – $30.00 $100.00 $15.00 $15.00 46.7% 32.0% 46.7% 46.7%

Tahoe Area Regl. Transit $1.25 – – $1.00 $3.00 – $2.00 $2.00 Multi-Ride Tickets Only – – – –

Long Beach Transit $0.90 – $0.75 $0.45 – – – – $40.00 – $23.00 $11.00 -1.0% – 43.5% 80.0%

SMART (Stockton) $1.10 $1.40 $0.85 $0.55 $3.00 – $2.00 $1.50 $40.00 – $30.00 $20.00 21.0% – 24.7% 21.0%

Folsom Stage $2.00 – – – – – – – $60.00 – – – 46.7% – – –

SamTrans (San Mateo County) $1.25 $2.50 $0.75 $0.60 – – – – $40.00 – $22.00 $18.00 37.5% – 50.0% 46.7%

Benicia Transit $1.00 – $0.75 $0.50 – – – – $37.00 – $33.00 $18.50 18.9% – 0.0% 18.9%

Westcat (W. Contra Costa County) $1.50 – $0.75 $0.75 – – – – – – – – – – – –

Petaluma Transit $0.90 – $0.90 $0.45 – – – – $29.00 – $23.00 $14.00 36.6% – 72.2% 41.4%

Union City Transit $1.10 – – $0.40 – – – – $33.00 – – $11.00 46.7% – – 60.0%

Vallejo Transit $1.35 – $1.35 $0.65 – – – – $40.00 – $30.00 $20.00 48.5% – 98.0% 43.0%

Fairfield-Suisun Transit $1.25 – $1.25 $0.60 – – – – $42.00 – $37.00 $23.00 31.0% – 48.6% 14.8%

Santa Rosa CityBus $1.00 – $0.75 $0.50 – – – – $32.00 – $15.00 $16.00 37.5% – 120.0% 37.5%

Sonoma County Transit $0.95 – $0.75 $0.45 – – – – $44.00 – $33.00 $22.00 -5.0% – 0.0% -10.0%

Monterey-Salinas Transit $1.75 -- $0.85 $0.85 – – – – $53.00 – $26.00 $26.00 45.3% – 43.8% 43.8%

Santa Cruz METRO $1.50 $3.00 $1.50 $0.65 $4.50 $6.00 $4.50 $2.00 $50.00 $80.00 $35.00 $23.00 32.0% 65.0% 88.6% 24.3% Golden Empire Transit District $0.75 – -- $0.35 – – – $0.85 $25.00 – – $12.50 32.0% – – 23.2% (Bakersfield) Average $1.21 $2.48 $0.89 $0.57 – – – – $40.60 $87.50 $25.00 $18.61 31.2% 47.9% 64.0% 35.1%

Placer County Transit (1) $0.75 – – $0.60 $2.00 – – $1.50 $25.00 – – $20.00 32.0% – – 32.0% Percent of Average 62.1% – – 106.0% – – – – 61.6% – – 107.5% 102.7% – – 91.1% Auburn Transit $0.80 – $0.60 $0.60 $2.00 – $2.00 $2.00 $18.00 – $18.00 $18.00 95.6% – 46.7% 46.7% Percent of Average 66.2% – 67.1% 106.0% – – – – 44.3% – 72.0% 96.7% 306.6% – 73.0% 132.9% Lincoln Transit $0.75 – – $0.50 – – – – $15.00 – – $15.00 120.0% – – 46.7% Percent of Average 62.1% – – 88.4% – – – – 37.0% – – 80.6% 385.0% – – 132.9% Roseville Transit $1.30 $2.50 $0.65 $0.65 $3.40 – $1.70 $1.70 $50.00 $90.00 $26.00 $26.00 14.4% 22.2% 10.0% 10.0% Percent of Average 107.6% 100.7% 72.7% 114.9% – – – – 123.2% 102.9% 104.0% 139.7% 46.2% 46.4% 15.6% 28.5%

Note 1: PCT monthly pass is actually a 40-ride pass. Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, January 2004.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 8, Page 7

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 8, Page 8 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Chapter 9 Placer County Transit 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 upon the service plan, capital requirements, and funding requirements, the appropriate institutional and management strategies can be determined.

STATUS QUO SERVICE

A good starting point for the evaluation of Placer County Transit (PCT) service alternatives is the consideration of the impacts of the “status quo” – if current services remain unchanged over the upcoming planning period. As presented in Table 62 below, operating the current service plan in Fiscal Year 2004-05 would serve approximately 253,030 annual one-way passenger-trips on the fixed-route/commuter and 15,920 on the Alta Regional & Contracted Services programs based on existing ridership and population trends. The annual operating cost would be approximately $2,066,510, (not including capital costs), based on existing service levels and PCT’s estimated Fiscal Year 2004-05 cost model. A peak of nine buses is used on PCT’s existing directly-operated services: seven on the fixed-route service and two on the Alta Regional / Contracted services.

The largest single factor that can be expected to impact the PCT system over the Plan period is growth in population, in particular the growth in population groups most likely to use transit services. Another important factor is the increased use of PCT services over the past six years on a per capita basis. As discussed in Chapter 3, the substantial increase in service levels has contributed greatly to the increase in transit ridership on a per capita basis. These elements will likely have the effect of increasing the demand for transit service, as follows:

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of zero-vehicle households in the study area (western Placer County) increased 57.0 percent and the population living below poverty increased 9.3 percent between 1990 and 2000, while the total population increased 46.6 percent. These figures represent annual growth rates of 4.6, 0.9 and 3.9 percent, respectively. As presented in Tables B-1 through B-3 in Appendix B, western Placer County’s population is expected to increase by 23.9 percent (2.2 percent annually) between 2000 and 2005, and 15.1 percent (2.9 percent annually) between 2005 and 2010. This indicates that population over the coming ten years will continue to grow substantially (42.6 percent between 2000 and 2010). Additionally, elderly, mobility-limited and low-income persons are estimated to increase 22.2, 22.7 and 18.3 percent, respectively, between 2000 and 2005. Furthermore, it can be expected that much of the associated increase in travel demand will be for travel between communities (which is the focus of PCT services). As such, demand for transit services will increase during the Plan period due to this anticipated growth in these population segments. It should be noted that the proportion of persons who reported a “go outside the home” disability in 2000 increased dramatically nationwide. Many experts

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 9, Page 1

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 9, Page 2 Short Range Transit Plan Update

TABLE 62: Placer County Transit Service Alternatives Fiscal Year 2004-05 Operating Characteristics Additional Per Run Total Daily Total Annual Ridership Impact Annual (4) Vehicles Runs Per Time Length Veh. Serv. Veh. Serv. Operating Veh. Serv. Veh. Serv. Operating (One-Way Trips) Farebox Subsidy (2) (3) Alternative Required (1) Day (Hours) (Miles) Hours Miles Days Hours Miles Cost Daily Annual Revenue Required Status Quo Fixed Route/Commuter Service 7 ------23,530 521,890 $1,439,070 -- 253,030 $125,600 $1,313,470 Alta Regional and Contracted Services 2 ------2,780 52,990 $168,550 -- 15,920 $145,904 $22,646 Fixed Costs ------$458,890 ------Subtotal ------26,310 574,880 $2,066,510 -- 268,950 $271,504 $1,336,116

Provide Peak Period Weekday 30-Minute Service Highway 49 Route 2 ------12.00 146.5 256 3,072 37,499 $164,810 102 26,130 $12,970 $151,840 Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College Route 2 ------14.00 270.4 256 3,584 69,227 $214,790 75 19,310 $9,590 $205,200 Auburn / Light Rail Route 2 ------12.00 360.1 256 3,072 92,177 $217,300 135 34,550 $17,150 $200,150 Subtotal 6 ------38.00 777.0 256 9,728 198,903 $596,900 312 79,990 $39,710 $557,190 Provide Saturday 60-Minute Service Highway 49 Route ------9.60 117.2 51 490 5,976 $24,410 35 1,770 $880 $23,530 Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College Route ------4.80 92.7 51 245 4,728 $13,870 12 620 $310 $13,560 Auburn / Light Rail Route (Begin at 7:00 A.M.) ------8.00 240.0 51 408 12,242 $27,310 43 2,200 $1,090 $26,220 Additional Dispatching Costs ------51 -- -- $1,840 ------$1,840 Subtotal ------22.40 449.9 51 1,142 22,947 $67,430 90 4,590 $2,280 $65,150 Operate Sunday Service Highway 49 Route ------7.60 92.8 51 388 4,731 $19,320 35 1,780 $880 $18,440 Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College Route ------4.80 92.7 51 245 4,728 $13,870 12 630 $310 $13,560 Auburn / Light Rail Route ------8.00 240.0 51 408 12,242 $27,310 40 2,020 $1,000 $26,310 (5) CTSA-Provided Demand Response Services ------26.50 296.7 51 1,352 15,132 $33,430 28 1,450 $630 $32,800 Additional Dispatching Costs ------51 -- -- $11,020 ------$11,020 Subtotal ------46.90 722.2 51 2,392 36,834 $104,950 115 5,880 $2,820 $102,130 Operate Later Weekday Evening Fixed-Route/Commuter Service Extend Fixed-Route/Commuter Weekday Service by One Run ------6.17 147.6 256 1,579 37,783 $96,470 27 6,910 $3,430 $93,040 (5) CTSA-Provided Demand Response Services ------7.17 80.6 256 1,835 20,635 $45,480 11 2,820 $1,230 $44,250 Additional Dispatching Costs ------256 -- -- $12,290 ------$12,290 Subtotal ------13.33 228.2 256 3,413 58,418 $154,240 38 9,730 $4,660 $149,580 Extend Fixed-Route/Commuter Weekday Service by Two Runs ------12.33 295.2 256 3,157 75,566 $192,930 41 10,480 $5,200 $187,730 (5) CTSA-Provided Demand Response Services ------13.33 150.0 256 3,413 38,391 $84,610 13 3,330 $1,450 $83,160 Additional Dispatching Costs ------256 -- -- $18,430 ------$18,430 Subtotal ------25.67 445.1 256 6,571 113,956 $295,970 54 13,810 $6,650 $289,320 Extend Hwy 49 & Sierra College to Match Auburn / Light Rail ------5.75 86.2 256 1,472 22,063 $77,310 14 3,460 $1,720 $75,590 (5) CTSA-Provided Demand Response Services ------2.00 22.5 256 512 5,759 $12,690 11 2,820 $1,230 $11,460 Subtotal ------7.75 108.7 256 1,984 27,822 $90,000 25 6,280 $2,950 $87,050 Improve Colfax/Alta Service Frequency Provide All-Day Colfax/Alta Service -- 4 3.00 64.0 12.00 255.9 256 3,072 65,510 $180,020 48 12,250 $6,080 $173,940 Provide Mid-Day Colfax/Alta Service -- 1 3.00 64.0 3.00 64.0 256 768 16,378 $45,010 13 3,420 $1,700 $43,310 Modification of Lincoln / Sierra College Route Provide Service to Thunder Valley Casino -- 14 -- 0.8 -- 11.2 256 -- 2,867 $2,750 62 15,930 $7,910 ($5,160) Elimination of Service at Atherton Rd./Menlo Dr. Business Park -- (14) -- (1.5) -- (21.0) 256 -- (5,376) ($5,160) (1) (260) ($130) ($5,030) Elimination of Service to Costco -- (14) -- (1.0) -- (14.0) 256 -- (3,584) ($3,440) (3) (770) ($380) ($3,060) Elimination of Service to Old Rocklin Wal-Mart -- (14) -- (1.0) -- (14.0) 256 -- (3,584) ($3,440) (6) (1,540) ($760) ($2,680) Subtotal 14 -- (2.7) -- (37.8) 256 -- (9,677) ($9,290) 52 13,360 $6,640 ($15,930)

Provide Service Along Stanford Ranch Road Provision of Service on Stanford Ranch Road -- 14 -- 3.2 -- 45.2 256 -- 11,576 $11,110 35 8,960 $4,450 $6,660 Elimination of Service on Sunset Boulevard -- (14) -- (1.7) -- (23.2) 256 -- (5,949) ($5,710) (2) (510) ($250) ($5,460) Subtotal -- 14 -- 1.6 -- 22.0 256 -- 5,627 $5,400 33 8,450 $4,200 $1,200 Service Expansion to New Developments in Unincorporated Placer County Potential Service to Uninc. Placer County West & Southwest of Roseville 1 14 1.00 12.9 14.00 180.0 256 3,584 46,090 $186,740 13 3,330 $1,650 $185,090 Potential Service to Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Area 1 14 1.00 18.0 14.00 252.0 256 3,584 64,512 $204,430 71 18,280 $9,070 $195,360 Potential Service Between Auburn and Folsom 1 3 2.00 40.0 6.00 120.0 256 1,536 30,720 $93,900 17 4,450 $2,210 $91,690 Increase Highway 49 DAR Service to Match Fixed-Route Span of Service ------1.10 10.3 256 282 2,636 $13,270 2 510 $160 $13,110 Provide Granite Bay DAR Using Roseville DAR 1 ------14.00 128.0 256 3,584 32,768 $112,810 17 4,330 $4,860 $107,950

Note 4: Based on PCT ridership between February 2003 and January 2004, factored up by the annual population growth rate (2.9 Note 1: Excluding spares, which can only be calculated for the system as a whole. For the Status Quo alternative, the peak number of vehicles required by service is presented. percent). Note 2: Assumes seven annual holidays. Note 5: Complementary paratransit service provided by CTSA, with calculations based on CTSA Cost Model and Performance Note 3: Based on PCT 's estimated FY04-05 cost model. Indicators as shown in Tables 51 and 52, respectively.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Updat Chapter 9, Page 3

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 9, Page 4 Short Range Transit Plan Update

believe that the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 increased awareness of disabilities and the corresponding rights afforded to persons with disabilities.

In addition, the productivity of the fixed-route system has increased from 5.2 one-way passenger-trips per vehicle service hour in Fiscal Year 1992-93 to 11.0 in Fiscal Year 2002- 03, equating to 7.8 percent annual growth – a growth rate well above the growth in either zero-vehicle households, low-income persons or total population, as discussed above. Thus, the proclivity of area residents and visitors to use PCT services has increased due to a number of reasons, including increases in the service level, purchase of new and enhanced buses, expansion of the service area and increases in traffic congestion in the region.

The upward trend in these factors suggests that demand for fixed-route services can be expected to increase in the future. For this reason, and given the capacity limits of existing services, adherence to the Status Quo option is probably not feasible as unmet transit needs will be generated in the future.

FIXED-ROUTE/COMMUTER SERVICE ALTERNATIVES

Weekday Peak Period Service Frequency Improvements

The current fixed-route/commuter service plan calls for hourly headways, which is typical for in smaller urban areas. In light of continued urbanization of the area and associated growth in transit needs, a reasonable service alternative is to evaluate service frequency improvements on the three main fixed-route/commuter services during the peak morning and afternoon periods.

Under the current service plan, six buses provide hourly service between roughly 5:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M. on the Highway 49, Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College, and Auburn / Light Rail routes. Under this service alternative, an additional six vehicles (not including spare buses) would be used to double the service frequency on all three routes. In short, this option would reduce the wait time between buses from every 60 minutes to every 30 minutes during the peak morning and afternoon periods, as follows:

Highway 49 – 8:00 A.M. to 11:00 A.M., and 3:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College – 7:00 A.M. to 11:00 A.M., and 3:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. Auburn / Light Rail – 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M., and 3:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M.

As presented in Table 62 above, this option would increase annual vehicle service hours by 21,628 and vehicle service miles by 535,854. Applying these peak vehicle, hour and mile figures to the cost model presented in Table 18 in Chapter 3 (factored up 3.0 percent annually to account for inflation), this increased service level equates to an additional annual operating cost of $596,900. Additional capital costs would also be incurred, since six additional buses (not including spare, if necessary) would be required.

The impact to annual systemwide in ridership can be estimated by applying an “elasticity analysis,” which considers the typical change in ridership associated with a change in service quality. In this case, doubling the service frequency (from hourly to half-hourly) during the morning and afternoon peak periods is expected to increase ridership by 49.5 percent, based upon the observed ridership impact of service frequency improvements in similar smaller urban

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 9, Page 5 areas. As presented in Table 62 above, this service alternative is estimated to increase annual ridership by 79,990 one-way passenger-trips. This additional ridership would increase annual passenger farebox revenues by $39,170, based on the anticipated Fiscal Year 2004-05 average fare per fixed-route/commuter one-way passenger-trip. The resulting increase in annual subsidy would be $557,190.

It should be noted that, according to discussions with operating staff, the Auburn / Light Rail Route schedule often operates late, particularly during peak periods. Although the primary determinant of on-time performance challenges are traffic-related, passenger boarding and alighting time contributes to route delays. A reasonable option, therefore, would be to double the service frequency on this route, without necessarily improving the service frequency on the other two routes.

The advantages of these service options are that the convenience of the service would be greatly enhanced and the ridership would be “distributed” over a greater number of runs, thereby reducing the frequency that delays occur caused by passenger activity. The disadvantages are the additional operating and capital funding required, potential riders confusion caused by an inconsistent schedule, and the fact that service delays associated with traffic congestion would still remain. To some degree, the recent completion of the High Occupancy Vehicle lanes in Sacramento County will help alleviate on-time performance challenges of the Auburn/Light Rail service. Nonetheless, traffic delays expected to continue to delay this route on occasion. Finally, the additional mileage accumulated on the vehicles would tend to reduce the useful life on the fleet over time.

Saturday Service Frequency Improvements

The existing service plan calls for a reduced Saturday span of service, which is typical in small urban and rural areas. Specifically, the Highway 49 service operates from 8:30 A.M. to 5:46 P.M. using one bus, the Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College service operates from 9:00 A.M. to 3:48 P.M. using one bus, and the Auburn / Light Rail service operates from 9:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. using one bus. However, the use of a single bus on each service results in two-hour headways, which dissuades all but the most transit-dependent riders from using PCT services. As such, a reasonable alternative is to improve Saturday service by operating service every 60 minutes, and starting the Auburn / Light Rail run at 7:00 A.M. instead of 9:00 A.M. This option would enhance connectivity with other transit providers in the region.

This service alternative would require doubling the number of buses operated on these routes from the current number of three to a total of six. As the existing vehicle fleet could accommodate increased headways, no major capital costs would be incurred. An additional 1,142 annual vehicle service hours and 22,947 annual vehicle service miles would be operated. The net annual increase in operating costs to operate hourly headways would amount to $67,430, as presented in Table 62 above. This figure includes additional dispatching costs that would be incurred to begin the Auburn / Light Rail service at 7:00 A.M. In total, additional dispatching costs would be approximately $1,840 per year, based on an additional 1.5 paid hours per day at a fully allocated hourly cost of $24.00 per hour. Based on an elasticity analysis, the anticipated ridership under this service alternative is estimated at 4,590 additional one-way passenger-trips, or 90 per service day. This additional ridership would generate $2,280 in annual farebox revenues, resulting in an increased annual subsidy requirement of $65,150.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 9, Page 6 Short Range Transit Plan Update

The advantages and disadvantages of this option are similar to those presented in the previous option. However, as mentioned above, no additional capital costs are required.

Sunday Service

While not particularly common for smaller transit programs, other transit systems in the region operate on Sundays. For example, Roseville Dial-A-Ride, Auburn Transit and Sacramento RT – all transit systems which provide links to PCT – operate a Saturday span of service on Sundays. A reasonable alternative would be to provide Sunday service similar to the existing PCT Saturday service.

Under this service alternative, three fixed-route buses would provide Sunday service based on the existing PCT Saturday service. It should be noted that ADA complementary paratransit service would also be operated, as well as the Taylor Road Shuttle deviated fixed-route service. In total, three paratransit buses operated by PCT’s contractor would provide service during the same hours the fixed-route system would operate. As presented in Table 62 above, this option would require operation of an additional 2,392 annual vehicle service hours and 36,834 vehicle service miles, requiring an additional $104,950 in direct annual operating funds ($71,520 for the fixed-route service and $33,430 for PCT’s contracted demand response services). This figure also includes additional dispatching costs, assumed to be $11,020 per year, based on nine paid hours per day at a fully allocated hourly cost of $24.00 per hour.

Due to lower travel demand, transit ridership on Sunday services is typically observed in similar systems to be roughly half of Saturday ridership. Using this proportion as a basis of estimating Sunday ridership, approximately 4,430 annual one-way passenger-trips would be provided on the fixed-route service (87 per day) and 1,450 on the demand response services (28 per day). This ridership level would generate approximately $2,820 in additional annual passenger fare revenues. A total of $102,130 in annual operating subsidy would be required under this option. It should be noted that the annual operating cost and subsidy figures assume that either PCT or CTSA would provide dispatch services for both programs; if both systems were to provide dispatch services for their respective operations, the total operating cost and subsidy would be higher.

The greatest advantages of operating Sunday fixed-route service 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 costs. In addition, the additional mileage accumulated on the vehicles would tend to reduce the useful life on the fleet over time. Finally, PCT and its contractor might encounter challenges in recruiting employees willing to work on Sundays.

Operate Later Weekday Evening Fixed-Route/Commuter Service

Currently, PCT operates fixed-route/commuter service until 7:36 P.M. on the Highway 49 route, 8:00 P.M. on the Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College route and 9:00 P.M. on the Auburn / Light Rail route. While this service termination time is equivalent to or later than many other similar systems, it does preclude access to evening recreational and social activities – particularly on the Highway 49 and Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College routes. Considering the hourly variation in ridership observed at similar systems operating later into the evening, two viable service

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 9, Page 7 alternative options exist: 1) operate one additional fixed-route run on each route, 2) operate two additional fixed-route runs on each route, and 3) Extend Highway 49 and Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College services to match Auburn / Light Rail service.

Extend PCT Services By One Additional Run

Under this first option, service would be extended to provide increased convenience for existing riders and to attract additional riders by operating one additional “cycle” of the fixed-route service (including Highway 49, Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College, and Auburn / Light Rail routes). In addition, complementary paratransit service (provided by CTSA) would also need to be provided according the extended schedule. This would increase the ability of passengers to use transit service to commute home from jobs, social activities, and shopping.

One advantage of extending the service day is that additional vehicles are not required. Thus, there are no major capital costs associated with this improvement. However, there are still annual operating costs to consider. The additional daily vehicle service hours would be increased as follows:

Highway 49 Route – The schedule for the bus that currently terminates at 6:36 P.M. would be extended until 8:36 P.M. in order to complete an additional North Auburn Loop segment as well as the southbound and northbound Highway 49 segments. The schedule for the bus that currently terminates at 7:36 P.M. would be extended until 7:46 P.M. in order to complete an additional North Auburn Loop segment. In total, this equates to an additional 2.17 vehicle service hours per service day.

Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College Route – The increased vehicle service hours for this route is relatively simple to calculate, since the schedule for the bus that currently ends at 8:00 P.M. would simply provide one additional two-hour run.

Auburn / Light Rail Route – Similar to the Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College route discussed above, the schedule for the bus that currently terminates at 9:00 P.M. would simply provide one additional two-hour run.

Contractor-Provided Demand Response Services – In order to meet the requirements of the ADA, complementary paratransit services would also need to be operated. However, it should be noted that the Highway 49 Dial-A-Ride service currently operates only until 6:30 P.M. and should be available until the end of Highway 49 fixed-route service (7:36 P.M.). (This service deficiency is discussed in detail in a section below.) The Taylor Road Shuttle deviated fixed-route service would also include one additional run, requiring two additional daily vehicle service hours. As presented in Table 62 above, the vehicle service hours for demand response services is anticipated to increase by 6.17 per service day

In total, an additional 3,413 annual vehicle service hour and 58,418 vehicle service miles would be operated under this service alternative. As presented in Table 62 above, the estimated net annual increase in operating costs under this service alternative would amount to $154,240, including additional dispatch staffing resources.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 9, Page 8 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Based on estimated ridership by hour on the existing PCT fixed-route/commuter weekday services as well as the ratio of ridership in this additional hour observed on other services with longer operating hours, it is estimated that this service would generate average daily ridership of 27 one-way passenger-trips, or 6,910 annually. Additionally, based on average one-way passenger-trips per vehicle service hour on CTSA services, annual ridership on the complementary ADA paratransit service and Taylor Road Shuttle is estimated to be 2,330, or 9 per day. The estimated net impact of this option on ridership is therefore 9,730 additional annual one-way passenger-trips. This ridership level would generate increased annual farebox revenues of $4,660. Thus, the annual increase in subsidy required would total $149,580.

As mentioned above, the greatest advantage of this option is that additional vehicles would not be required. In addition, extending service by one hour would allow persons to use transit service with non-traditional work shifts throughout the service area as well as for returning home from shopping and social activities. The greatest disadvantage is the additional operating subsidy required. In addition, the additional mileage accumulated on the vehicles would tend to reduce the useful life on the fleet over time.

Extend PCT Services By Two Additional Runs

Under the second option, service would be extended to provide increased convenience for existing riders by operating two additional cycles of the fixed-route service and by extending demand response services accordingly. This service alternative option would further increase the ability of passengers to use transit service to commute home, and provide links to shopping and entertainment resources.

As presented in Table 62 above, the estimated net annual increase in operating cost to extend service by two fixed-route runs would amount to $295,970, including additional dispatch staffing requirements and paratransit costs. Similar to the discussion above regarding potential ridership, it is estimated that extending the service day by two fixed-route runs would generate average daily ridership of 41 one-way passenger-trips on the fixed-route service, and 13 one-way passenger-trips on the demand response services. In total, an additional approximately 13,810 annual one-way passenger-trips would be provided. This ridership level would generate increased fare revenues of $6,650. The annual increase in subsidy required would total $289,320 under this service alternative option.

The advantages and disadvantages of this option are similar to those presented in the previous option, although an additional advantage is that riders would have greater access to evening activities in the service area.

Extend Highway 49 & Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College to Match Auburn / Light Rail

Under this third option, the Highway 49 and Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College services would be extended to match the existing Auburn / Light Rail service. The accompanying CTSA-provided demand response services would also be extended, in order to meet the requirements of the ADA. As presented in Table 62 above, this option would require an additional $90,000 in annual operating revenues. Ridership was estimated using an elasticity analysis. In total, this option would increase annual ridership by approximately 6,280 one-way passenger-trips, which

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 9, Page 9 would generate an additional $2,950 in farebox revenues. The resulting operating subsidy would be $87,050.

The advantages and disadvantages of this option are similar to those presented in the previous option, although the annual operating subsidy would be relatively lower. Improve Colfax/Alta Service Frequency

Provide All-Day Colfax/Alta Service

Under this service alternative option, an additional four daily round-trips would be provided. The departure times from the new Auburn Multimodal Station would be every two hours beginning at 7:00 A.M. In total, the bus would operate an additional 8.0 daily vehicle service hours, equating to an annual total of 2,048 marginal vehicle service hours and 65,510 vehicle service miles. This additional service would require an additional $180,020 in annual operating costs. Based on elasticity analyses pertaining to frequency changes in other similar communities, ridership under this option is estimated at 12,250 annual one-way passenger-trips, or 48 per day. This equates to annual farebox revenues of $6,080 and an increase of $173,940 in operating subsidy.

The greatest advantage of this option is that additional runs would be operated, thereby increasing riders’ access to jobs, shopping and recreation. The greatest disadvantage is the additional operating subsidy that would be required.

Provide One Additional Mid-Day Colfax/Alta Run

Under this option, one mid-day run would be added. As presented in Table 62 above, this option would require operation of an additional 768 annual vehicle service hours and 16,378 vehicle service miles. This equates to an additional $45,010 in annual operating costs. Ridership under this option is estimated to be approximately 3,420 annual one-way passenger-trips, based on an elasticity analysis of existing ridership on this route. This equates to annual farebox revenues of 1,700 and an increase of $43,310 in operating subsidy.

The greatest advantage of this option is that riders’ access to jobs, shopping and recreation would be enhanced. The greatest disadvantage is the additional operating subsidy that would be required, although it would be considerably less than under the option discussed above.

Modification of Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College Route

Due to changing development patterns in Rocklin, a reasonable alternative is to revise the existing Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College service to serve newly-developed areas. Three options are presented below.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 9, Page 10 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Service to Thunder Valley Casino

Thunder Valley Casino, a Native American Indian Casino, is located at 1200 Athens Road in Lincoln, just off Industrial Boulevard, which is a frontage road along State Route 65. The facility is open 24 hours per day, employs approximately 2,200 persons and features an 84,000 square foot floor area with over 1,900 slot machines and 100 gaming tables. This new development can be expected to have significant impacts on transit demand in the region – both in terms of recreational and employee transportation. In particular, similar casinos in northern California (such as the Cache Creek Casino in Yolo County) have proven to generate substantial levels of transit demand for employee transportation. For these reasons, a reasonable service alternative option would be to provide service to this facility.

The SR 65 corridor between the Roseville Galleria and Lincoln is currently served by the PCT Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College route. From Lincoln, the route travels along SR 65 to Sunset Boulevard, where it continues on to the Galleria, and then to Sierra College. Although the route currently travels near the Thunder Valley Casino, no service is provided to or within a reasonable walk distance of the facility.

A reasonable alternative to serve the Thunder Valley Casino would be to modify the existing Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College commuter route as presented in Figure 44 below. As depicted, rather than traveling along the entire SR 65 corridor between Lincoln and Sunset Boulevard, the revised commuter route would travel along Industrial Boulevard from the SR 65 / Twelve Bridges exit, stop at the Casino at Athens and Industrial Boulevard, and continue on to the Industrial Boulevard / Sunset Boulevard intersection. This commuter route revision would increase one-way route mileage by roughly 0.8 vehicle service miles. At Sunset Boulevard, the bus would follow the existing route to the Galleria, then on to Sierra College, with the following modifications:

Service would be discontinued at the Atherton Road / Menlo Drive business park. This will reduce the per trip mileage by 1.5.

Service to Costco would be discontinued, with the bus traveling along Stanford Ranch Road to the Galleria, rather than deviating from Stanford Ranch Road onto Five Star Boulevard to serve Costco. This will reduce the per trip mileage by 1.0.

Service to the old Rocklin Wal-Mart has been discontinued, as the facility has moved to a new location in Roseville. This has reduced the per trip mileage by 1.0.

With these route revisions, sufficient travel time would exist to serve the Thunder Valley Casino, as these modifications would provide a time savings of roughly eight to twelve minutes.

As presented in Table 62 above, these route revisions are anticipated to reduce annual operating costs by a net of $9,920, due to the net reduction in annual vehicle service miles as discussed above. Potential ridership generated by serving the Thunder Valley Casino can best be estimated by considering ridership on the existing service operated by the Yolobus service to the Cache Creek Casino in Yolo County. Yolobus Route 215 currently provides five round trips per day, 365 days per year along State Route 16 between the Cache Creek Casino and Woodland (with

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 9, Page 11

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 9, Page 12 Short Range Transit Plan Update

connections to the Sacramento metropolitan area). Service is provided to the Cache Creek Casino at roughly 7:00 AM, 10:00 AM, 3:00 PM, 6:00 PM, and 11:00 PM., effectively serving most of the Casino’s work shifts. Currently, over 9,000 one-way passenger-trips are provided monthly on this route. Yolobus staff estimates that 80 percent of the total passenger-trips provided on Route 215 are for Cache Creek Casino employees and visitors (roughly half of this number are employees). This equates to a productivity of almost 30 one-way passenger-trips per vehicle service hour, using a full-size 40-foot transit coach. The Cache Creek Casino facility is open 24 hours per day, and features an 18,000 square foot gaming area with 1,000 slot machines and over 70 table games. As mentioned above, the Thunder Valley Casino is also open 24 hours per day and its gaming area is significantly larger.

Ridership on the Thunder Valley Casino route segment can be estimated in two steps: 1) by evaluating ridership if service identical to the Yolobus service to Cache Creek Casino were to be provided, based on the relative size of the two facilities, and 2) by identifying the ridership impacts associated with the differences in the two transit service levels. If the Yolobus level of service were to be operated to Thunder Valley Casino, a comparison of the employment levels and gaming size of the two facilities indicates that annual ridership would be roughly 61,780 employees and 61,780 visitors per year, or a total of 123,550. Adjustments reflecting the level of service would be as follows:

PCT’s weekday span of service would serve the Thunder Valley Casino from roughly 6:10 A.M. on the Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College route through 7:40 P.M. on the westbound Sierra College / Rocklin / Sierra College route. This span of service would effectively only serve one primary employee shift, and would not serve the peak evening visitor activity period. This is expected to reduce overall employee ridership by 75 percent and overall visitor ridership by 50 percent.

PCT’s Saturday span of service is even more limited, and would provide the first Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College service to the Casino around 9:10 A.M. and the last Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College departure around 3:10 PM. This effectively eliminates the ability to serve Saturday employees, and would also reduce total visitor ridership. In total, the reduced Saturday PCT span of service would reduce overall employee ridership an additional 15 percent and overall visitor ridership an additional 20 percent.

PCT does not operate service on Sunday, eliminating an additional 10 percent of overall employee ridership and 15 percent of overall visitor ridership.

On the other hand, during the weekday hours of operation, service would be provided hourly. This would tend to increase employee ridership by 5 percent and visitor ridership by 5 percent.

Table 62 above presents the estimate of net ridership for PCT service to the Thunder Valley Casino, assuming no change from the existing PCT daily span of service. As presented, ridership at the Thunder Valley Casino is estimated to total 15,930 annual one-way passenger- trips (3,180 employee and 12,750 visitor passenger-trips). The resulting annual farebox revenues at the casino would total $7,910, resulting in an annual subsidy reduction of $5,160 (the net increase in operating costs of providing service to the casino would be $2,750).

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 9, Page 13

As discussed above, service to the Atherton Road / Menlo Drive, Costco and Wal-Mart bus stops would be eliminated under this service alternative option. Ridership at these stops is relatively low, as reported in Table C1-D in Appendix C. As presented in Table 62 above, this reduction in service to these areas would eliminate a total of 2,570 one-way passenger-trips per year (or approximately 10 passenger-trips per day), and would reduce annual operating costs by approximately $12,040. The total net impact of these route revisions would be a net annual increase of 13,360 one-way passenger-trips and a net reduction of $15,930 in annual subsidy.

As the Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College would continue to primarily connect transfer centers and employment centers in Lincoln, Roseville, Rocklin and unincorporated portions of Placer County, it is considered a commuter service. As such, complementary ADA paratransit service would not be required under this service alternative.

The advantage of this service alternative option is transit service would be provided to the Thunder Valley Casino, which would provide recreational and employment opportunities. Additionally, the fleet would not be required to be expanded in order to serve the Casino. The disadvantage is the inconvenience to passengers due to the loss of service at the bus stops near Atherton Road / Menlo Drive, Costco and Wal-Mart.

Service to Along Stanford Ranch Road

The Stanford Ranch Road loop is not currently served directly by fixed-route service. However the PCT Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College route serves the portion of the Sunset Boulevard corridor between the north and south legs of the Stanford Ranch Road loop. A reasonable service alternative is to eliminate the service along this portion of Sunset Boulevard, and to re- route the bus to serve the Stanford Ranch Road loop.

This potential service revision is depicted in Figure 44 above. As presented in Table 62 above, implementation of this service alternative would result in an increase in annual vehicle service miles of 5,627. Implementation of this service alternative would result in a net increase in annual operating costs of $5,400.

As this route could be modified in conjunction with providing service to the Thunder Valley Casino facility and the elimination of service to the Atherton Road / Menlo Drive, Costco and Wal-Mart bus stops as discussed above, the elimination of ridership in the Sunset Boulevard corridor was analyzed at the Sunwest / West Oaks bus stop. A review of the data presented in Table C1-D in Appendix C indicates that eliminating service at this bus stop would result in a reduction in annual ridership totaling 510 annual one-way passenger-trips, or roughly two passenger-trips per day. Potential ridership on the new Stanford Ranch Road loop can be estimated based on the population within ¼-miles of this corridor. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, approximately 6,886 persons reside within this ¼-mile corridor. Applying a per-capita trip rate of approximately 1.6 one-way passenger-trips per year (The per capita trip rate on Roseville Transit Route D, which serves a similar area), factored down 20 percent to account for the relatively fewer number of activity centers along this corridor, it is estimated that transit service along the Stanford Ranch Road loop would provide an additional 8,960 annual one-way passenger-trips. The net impact to ridership of this service alternative would be an additional 8,450 annual one-way passenger-trips. As presented in Table 62 above, this ridership level would generate annual farebox revenues of $4,200. The resulting annual subsidy would be

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 9, Page 14 Short Range Transit Plan Update

$1,200. It should be noted that this service alternative option assumes the route modifications discussed under the Service to Thunder Valley Casino service alternative option presented above would be implemented at the same time.

The advantages of this service alternative option include providing service to Rocklin and Victory High Schools and the potential for an increase in ridership by re-routing the bus along the Stanford Ranch Road loop. The greatest disadvantage is the inconvenience to passengers due to the loss of service at the existing Sunwest / West Oaks bus stop.

Modify Service to Sierra College Campus

Under the current service plan, both the Auburn / Light Rail and Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College services operate buses in the parking lot of the Sierra College campus in Rocklin. However, this service plan requires two to three minutes to negotiate the buses within this congested area and increases the potential for vehicle accidents. As such, a reasonable option is to develop an enhanced bus stop on the periphery of the campus along Rocklin Road. This option would require the identification of a suitable site in conjunction with City of Rocklin officials, and construction of a passenger shelter with adequate lighting, wheelchair accessibility and other minor passenger amenities (trash receptacle, landscaping, bicycle racks, etc.). No impact to ridership, farebox revenues or operating cost is anticipated under this option, although on-time performance would be improved.

Service Expansion to New Developments in Unincorporated Placer County

According to the SACOG, the population in unincorporated Placer County is expected to grow roughly 15.4 percent between 2000 and 2005. With the recent approval of many residential and commercial developments, it is prudent to analyze the impacts of providing fixed-route transit service to these unserved areas. Service alternative options for two unincorporated areas with potential substantial population growth are presented below.

Potential Service to Unincorporated Placer County West and Southwest of Roseville

The western portion of unincorporated Placer County, specifically the area to the west and southwest of Roseville, is developing rapidly. Projects in the area consist of the following:

There are currently five approved projects in the vicinity south of Baseline Road, west of Walerga Road, just to the north and south of PFE Road, and west of Cook Riolo Road. These projects include the Morgan Creek, Sun Valley Oaks, Doyle Ranch, Riolo Greens and Willow Park developments. The estimated population of these developments at buildout (by approximately 2009, and based on market conditions) is estimated to total 2,562. These projects are comprised of only residential land uses with the exception of Morgan Creek, which will also include a golf course.

In addition, there are other projects in this area that have been proposed but not yet approved, including PFE Road Residential Development, Winding Creek Subdivision, Whisper Creek Subdivision, Whisper Creek Unit 2 and Placer Vineyards. The projected buildout population for these development total 37,935. With the exception of Placer Vineyards, these projects are comprised of only residential land uses, and are expected to break ground within 1-1/2 to

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 9, Page 15

2-1/2 years, if approved. Placer Vineyards is in the West Placer Specific Plan Area and would consist of commercial, town center, open space and recreational land uses. Buildout of Placer Vineyards is anticipated to occur over a 30 to 50 year period, and is expected to break ground in five years if the project is ultimately approved.

Additionally, an upper division California State University at Sacramento campus is proposed in the Placer Ranch Specific Plan, encompassing 6.6 million square feet, with a projected enrollment of 15,000 students.

Finally, the De La Salle University and Community project, located approximately two miles north of Baseline Road at the intersection of Brewer Road and Philip Road, has been proposed. This development would include a Christian Brothers-Saint Mary’s College campus, with an expected enrollment of 6,000 students and 2,342 residential units. The estimated population at buildout is 6,159.

Considering both approved and proposed projects, total population of the area at buildout is estimated to be 46,656.

A reasonable fixed-route serving this area is depicted in Figure 45 below. As presented, the bus would serve the areas to be developed, and then travel along Foothills Boulevard corridor to the Louis / Orlando Transfer Point. This route would operate on hourly headways, and would require one additional bus (not counting spare vehicles). It would operate approximately 3,584 annual vehicle service hours and 46,090 vehicle service miles, which equates to an annual operating cost of $186,740. Based on the total buildout population for the Morgan Creek, Sun Valley Oaks, Doyle Ranch, Riolo Greens and Willow Park developments of 2,562 persons and the same per-capita rate used above (factored down 20 percent to account for the fewer number of activity centers), it is estimated this new service would accommodate approximately 3,330 annual one-way passenger-trips at full build-out. As presented in Table 62 above, this ridership level would generate annual fare revenues of $1,650. The resulting annual subsidy would be $185,090.

The advantages of this service alternative are that it would provide hourly service to this newly developed area, and given the planned development in the areas that would be served by this new service, it would operate relatively efficiently. The primary disadvantages are the additional operating and capital revenues it would require.

It should be noted that, if this alternative is pursued, an option that would bear consideration would be operation of this route by the Roseville service contractor, rather than by PCT. This would greatly reduce the deadhead mileage associated with travel between the route and the PCT operations base in North Roseville, and would also increase the ability of operations staff to respond to operational problems. Under this option, PCT would contract with either the City of Roseville or the City’s service contractor directly to operate the service.

Potential Service to Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Area

The Bickford Ranch Specific Plan area is located approximately four miles west of I-80 and south of SR 193 between Lincoln and Newcastle. The Bickford Ranch Specific Plan has been approved, and consists of residential (1,950 dwelling units), service, employment, open space

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 9, Page 16 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 9, Page 17 and public land uses. Population at buildout (by approximately 2007, based on market conditions) is estimated to be 5,129. The Bickford Ranch Specific Plan area will include a minimum of two bus stops with sheltered benches at proposed locations along Bickford Ranch Road near the Heritage Ridge residential development, and at the Village Center Park-n-Ride lot, as depicted in Figure 46 below.

As presented in the figure, a new fixed-route would begin at the Auburn Multimodal Station, travel west along I-80 and SR 193, entering Bickford Ranch at Clark Tunnel Road. The bus would travel through Bickford Ranch via Clark Tunnel Road, Bickford Ranch Road and Lower Ranch Road to Sierra College Boulevard, at which point the bus would travel north connecting to SR 193 and continue to Lincoln. The bus would provide hourly links to Lincoln Transit at the 3rd and F Street transfer point, making the return trip to Auburn along the same route and connecting passengers to Auburn Transit, other PCT services and Gold Country Stage Route 5 at the Auburn Multimodal Station. As presented in Table 62 above, the estimated annual operating costs associated with this service would total $204,430, based on annual service levels of 3,584 vehicle service hours and 64,512 vehicle service miles.

Ridership for this service option can be estimated by evaluating potential ridership within the Bickford Ranch Specific Plan area, as well as potential commuter ridership between Lincoln and Auburn. Ridership within the development was estimated by applying the same per capita trip rate used above to the population at buildout, resulting in 6,670 annual one-way passenger trips. Additionally, as service to the Bickford Ranch Specific Plan area could also potentially serve commuters traveling between Lincoln and Auburn, ridership was calculated using SACOG’s SACMET transportation model, which forecasts home-to-work person-trips in western Placer County in 2000 and 2005. As presented in Table 58 in Chapter 4, an estimated 1,399 residents commute from Auburn to Lincoln, while 3,245 residents commute from Lincoln to Auburn. Typically, each employee makes two trips approximately 250 days per year. Thus, the 4,644 commuters in 2005 would make a total of roughly 2,322,000 annual one-way person-trips. Applying a reasonable maximum commuter mode split of 1.0 percent, estimated commuter ridership totals 23,220 one-way passenger-trips. Since the workplaces in both Lincoln and Auburn are relatively dispersed, this figure should be factored down by 50 percent, or 11,610 passenger-trips. The net ridership impact totals is estimated to be 18,280 annual one-way passenger-trips under this service alternative option. Estimated annual passenger farebox revenue would total $9,070, requiring an annual subsidy of $195,360.

The advantage of this service alternative option is that it would provide service to the Bickford Ranch area and along SR 193, linking residents to jobs, shopping and social opportunities. The primary disadvantage is the additional operating and capital revenues it would require.

Potential Service Between Auburn and Folsom

Currently, CTSA provides transit service in Granite Bay through the Taylor Road Shuttle and general public Dial-A-Ride services. However, attendees from recent public outreach meetings suggested providing service between Granite Bay and Auburn via Auburn-Folsom Road. Due to low population density in Granite Bay a more feasible alternative would be to provide commuter service between Auburn and Folsom, which would serve Granite Bay as well.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 9, Page 18 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 9, Page 19

As discussed in the previous alternative, the SACOG SACMET transportation model provides data on daily regional commuting patterns. As presented in Table 58 in Chapter 4, an estimated 377 residents commute from Auburn to Folsom. A commuter service could operate from the Auburn Multimodal Station to the Riley Street Transfer Center in Folsom, with bus stops in Granite Bay at the intersections of Auburn-Folsom Road at Douglas Boulevard and at Eureka Road. See Figure 47 below for details. This service would link commuters to Auburn Transit, PCT, Gold Country Stage Route 5 and Folsom Transit, allowing commuters to continue on to their final destination. For example, if the route departed the Auburn Multimodal Station at 6:00 A.M., it could connect passengers to Folsom Route 10 at 6:57 A.M., with the return trip connecting passengers at the Auburn Multimodal Station at 8:00 A.M. This route would operate morning departures from Auburn at 6:00 A.M. and would provide afternoon departures from Folsom at 5:30 P.M. In addition, one mid-day round-trip would be provided.

As presented in Table 62 above, this service level would require operation of approximately 1,536 annual vehicle service hours and 30,720 vehicle service miles. This route would require one additional bus (not counting spare vehicles). Accordingly, this service alternative would require an additional $93,900 in annual operating costs. As this service would primarily connect transfer centers and employment centers in Auburn and Folsom, it would be considered a commuter service. As such, complementary ADA paratransit service would not be required under this service alternative.

Ridership can be estimated using the general public commuter transit demand analysis presented in Chapter 4. Typically, each employee makes two trips approximately 250 days per year. Thus, the 337 commuters from Auburn to Folsom projected in 2005 would make a total of roughly 168,500 annual one-way person-trips. Applying a reasonable maximum commuter mode split of 1.0 percent suggests a total commuter demand for transit trips on the order of 1,690 annual one- way passenger-trips, or 7 per day.

In addition, this route would serve non-commute transit demand for residents of Granite Bay. Based upon the transit demand analysis as well as ridership generated on previous fixed-route services in the area, this demand would be equivalent to approximately 5 one-way passenger- trips per day, or 1,280 one-way passenger-trips per year. In total, ridership on this route would be roughly 4,450 annual one-way passenger-trips.

This ridership level would generate $2,210 in annual farebox revenues. The remaining subsidy would be $91,690. As Folsom is in Sacramento County, Placer County and the City of Folsom could consider entering into an agreement whereby each party contributes an appropriate amount of funds (possibly based on ridership from each jurisdiction) to cover operating subsidy.

The advantages of this option are that it would provide service in a corridor not currently served by fixed-schedule transit service, and it would increase riders’ access to jobs, shopping and recreational opportunities. The disadvantages are the additional operating and capital costs involved.

Increase Highway 49 DAR Service to Match Highway 49 Fixed-Route Span of Service

PCT’s program is currently out of compliance with the complementary paratransit service requirement spelled forth in the ADA, as the weekday Highway 49 Dial-A-Ride service is not

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 9, Page 20 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 9, Page 21 available for ADA-eligible patrons during all of the same hours as the weekday Highway 49 fixed-route service. Specifically, the weekday Highway 49 fixed-route service operates until 7:36 P.M., while the weekday Highway 49 Dial-A-Ride service only operates until 6:30 P.M. To come into compliance with the ADA in terms of service requirements, it is assumed that PCT will amend its current service plan to offer complementary paratransit service to ADA-eligible patrons during the same hours that the adjacent fixed-route service operates.

Under this service alternative, PCT would simply increase the service hours operated by its contractor (CTSA), using its current fleet of vehicles. As presented in Table 62 above, this option would increase annual service hours by 282 and vehicle service miles by 2,636. Accordingly, this service alternative would require an additional $13,270 in annual operating costs.

To determine the total ridership that would result from implementing this additional service, the Consultant Team estimated the number of passenger-trips per vehicle service hour based on existing annual ridership data, factored down to account for the lower typical ridership in the evening. Based on this method, it is estimated that an additional 510 annual one-way passenger- trips would be provided under this option, as presented in Table 62 above. The required annual operating subsidy would total $13,110 based on estimated annual passenger fare revenues of $160.

The greatest advantage of this service alternative is that PCT would come into compliance with the service requirements detailed in the ADA. The greatest disadvantage is that annual operating costs would increase.

Revise Routes to Serve Auburn Multimodal Station

The existing Elders Station bus stop will no longer be serving as the transfer center in Auburn. In an effort to encourage and expedite passenger transfers between buses and the Capitol Corridor rail services, as well as the transfer of passengers from one bus route to another, the new Auburn Multimodal Station has been developed at the intersection of Nevada Street and Blocker Drive / Fulweiler Avenue. PCT will begin serving the Auburn Multimodal Station on February 1, 2004, at which time PCT will no longer serve the Elders Station bus stop. No change in operating costs is anticipated, as there is virtually no change in vehicle service hours or miles.

The impact to ridership of moving the transfer point from Elders Station to the new Auburn Multimodal Station can be estimated by reviewing the ridership patterns of the two affected routes (Highway 49 and Auburn / Light Rail routes), the modal connections to and from these two routes, and the anticipated increase in the number of transfers that will be required. Typically, riders perceive negatively the need to transfer between buses in order to complete their trip. Empirical evidence suggests that each transfer is equivalent to an additional 12 minutes in travel time. As such, an elasticity analysis can be conducted on the ridership that would be affected by these route revisions. In total, a reduction of 1,220 annual one-way passenger-trips is anticipated due to the anticipated increase in the number of transfers that will be required.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 9, Page 22 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Commuter Service Between Colfax and Downtown Sacramento

Currently, there is no convenient commuter service from the study area directly to downtown Sacramento (with the exception of Roseville, which runs its own Sacramento commuter service). Planning for a commuter service is already underway by PCT, which has received a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) grant for service between Colfax and downtown Sacramento. PCT is currently seeking a transit service operator to provide commuter bus service between Colfax and downtown Sacramento, using a peak of two buses. The preliminary schedule indicates that PCT will stop at Park-n-Ride lots along the I-80 corridor, and serve major employment centers in downtown Sacramento. The commuter service will operate two morning and two afternoon round-trips (each run will require 90 minutes of in-service time). PCT estimates 1,530 annual vehicle service hours and 61,500 vehicle service miles.

Provide Granite Bay DAR Using Roseville DAR

PCT’s Granite Bay Dial-A-Ride (DAR) service is currently contracted to CTSA. The service is available Monday through Friday in the mid-morning (9:00 A.M. to 11:00 A.M.) and the early afternoon (2:00 P.M. to 4:00 P.M.). Since most trips are provided between Granite Bay and destinations in Roseville, a reasonable alternative would be to contract with Roseville Transit in order to increase access to a greater number of destinations in Roseville and to better coordinate services between these two areas.

In Fiscal Year 2001-02, the Granite Bay DAR provided 1,486 one-way passenger-trips, while operating 571 annual vehicle service hours and 10,401 vehicle service miles. The total operating cost for this service was $19,866. According to a review of driver run sheets for May 17 to May 28, 2003, most passenger-trips are provided between Granite Bay and destinations in Roseville (primarily the Roseville Galleria and commercial destinations along Douglas Boulevard). On average, 4.8 daily one-way passenger-trips were provided, and each passenger-trip required roughly 0.50 vehicle service hours and 9.2 vehicle service miles.

In order to estimate the potential ridership if the Roseville Transit DAR service area were expanded to include Granite Bay, the productivity of the existing service can be used as a basis, factored down by 25 percent (reflecting the fact that the existing ridership is currently “concentrated” in only four potential hours of service per day). In addition, a 15 percent reduction factor was applied to account for the higher fares charged by Roseville Transit on its DAR service; as of November 1, 2003, Roseville Transit raised its rate to $3.75 for general public and $1.75 for elderly/disabled passengers. As such, ridership generated by Granite Bay residents would total approximately 4,330 annual one-way passenger-trips. Based on the estimated average fare on Roseville Transit DAR’s existing service, this ridership level would generate $4,860 in annual farebox revenues. The resulting increase in annual subsidy would be $104,460. It should be noted that this figure includes a “credit” for the funds dedicated to the existing Granite Bay DAR service.

As presented in Table 62 above, the marginal operating cost of operating one additional vehicle would be approximately $109,320. Obviously, City of Roseville residents would accrue some benefit from this higher level of service, since the vehicle would also be available for transporting Roseville residents. Assuming that Granite Bay residents would provide approximately 1.2 one-way passenger-trips per vehicle service hour and that Roseville residents

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 9, Page 23 would provide 3.1 one-way passenger-trips per vehicle service hour, Roseville would provide funding for 60 percent of the operating revenues required. This equates to approximately $65,590 for Roseville and $43,730 for Placer County.

The advantage of this service alternative is that access to transit service would be expanded in both Roseville and Granite Bay. The disadvantage is the additional operating and capital funding required.

Other PCT Alternatives

Two other service alternatives that would directly affect PCT operations (Revise or Eliminate Foresthill Service and Eliminate Granite Bay DAR Service) are presented in the CTSA Short Range Transit Plan Update report under separate cover.

COMPARISON OF 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 passenger-trips per hour of service for an alternative that does not change the number of hours of service. Note that the Fiscal Year 2004- 05 cost figures are based upon PCT’s estimates of unit costs. Similarly, Fiscal Year 2004-05 ridership figures under the Status Quo alternative are based on ridership data recorded between February 2003 and January 2004, factored up 2.9 percent annually to account for anticipated population growth in the unincorporated county.

Table 63 below presents a series of “performance indicators” for the service alternatives discussed above. Not all of the indicators are applicable to each alternative. For instance, it is impossible to consider the marginal one-way passenger-trips per vehicle service hour for an alternative that does not change the number of hours operated.

The ridership impact of the various alternatives, as measured in marginal passenger-trips per year, is also presented in Figure 48 below. As presented, the three 30-minute peak period service alternatives (combined) have by far the greatest potential to increase ridership, at 79,990 one- way passenger-trips per year, followed by the Potential Service to Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Area service alternative (18,280) and the Extend Fixed-Route/Commuter Weekday Service by Two Runs service alternative option (13,810). 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.

Total required marginal change in operating subsidy – a very straightforward financial comparison of these alternatives – is presented for the various alternatives in Figure 49 below. As indicated, the three 30-minute peak period service alternatives (combined) would required the greatest annual subsidy ($557,190), followed by the Extend Fixed-Route/Commuter Weekday Service by Two Runs service alternative option ($289,320), the Potential Service to Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Area service alternative ($195,360) and the Potential Service to Unincorporated Placer County West & Southwest of Roseville service alternative option ($185,090). In comparison, the Provide Service to Thunder Valley Casino service alternative would actually reduce annual subsidy requirements.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 9, Page 24 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Ratio Farebox Marginal Trip Subsidy Marginal Per Pass- 0.16 $17.37 2.7% 0.14 $20.60 2.4% 0.20 $14.19 3.4% 0.30 $1.42 86.6% 0.19 $14.20 3.4% 0.13 $24.93 4.3% 0.70 $5.81 7.9% 0.21 $12.660.07 3.8% $55.58 0.9% 0.28 $10.69 4.4% 0.19 $25.70 1.2% 0.17 $15.37 3.0% 0.12 $20.95 2.2% 0.23 $13.86 3.3% 0.28 $10.63 4.5% Marginal s Per VSM Passenger Marginal s Per VSH Passenger s si Subsidy Marginal Operating y 510 $13,110 1.8 5,880 $102,130 2.5 4,450 $91,690 2.9 4,590 $65,150 4.0 4,330 $107,950 1.2 3,420 $43,310 4.5 3,330 $185,090 0.9 9,730 $149,580 2.9 6,280 $87,050 3.2 8,450 $1,200 -- 1.50 $0.14 77.8% 15,920 $22,646 5.7 12,250 $173,940 4.0 26,130 $151,840 8.5 34,550 $200,150 11.2 0.37 $5.79 7.9% 18,280 $195,360 5.1 13,810 $289,320 2.1 19,310 $205,200 5.4 13,360 ($15,930) -- (1.38) ($1.19) -71.5% Annual 253,030 $1,313,470 10.8 0.48 $5.19 8.7% Ridership Transit Service Alternatives Performance Anal y Fiscal Year 2004-05 TABLE 63: Placer Count Alternative Status Quo Fixed Route/Commuter Service Status Quo Alta Regional and Contracted Services Operate Sunday Service Extend Fixed-Route/Commuter Weekday Service by One Run 30-Minute Peak Period Highway 49 Service 30-Minute Peak Period Auburn / Light Rail Service Provide Saturday 60-Minute Service Extend Fixed-Route/Commuter Weekday Service by Two Runs 30-Minute Peak Period Lincoln / Rocklin Sierra College Service Potential Service Between Auburn and Folsom Increase Highway 49 DAR Service to Match Fixed-Route Span of Extend Hwy 49 & Sierra College to Match Auburn / Light Rail Provide All-Day Colfax/Alta Service Provide Mid-Day Colfax/Alta Service Provide Service to Thunder Valley Casino Provide Service Along Stanford Ranch Road Potential Service to Uninc. Placer County West & Southwest of Roseville Potential Service to Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Area Provide Granite Bay DAR Using Roseville

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 9, Page 25

253,030 34,550 Annual One-Way Passenger-Trips 26,130 19,310 18,280 15,920 13,810 13,360 12,250 9,730 8,450 6,280 5,880 4,590 4,450 4,330 3,420 3,330 510 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 Annual Ridership Operate Sunday Service FIGURE 48: PCT Service Alternatives Provide All-Day Colfax/Alta Service Provide Saturday 60-Minute Service Provide Mid-Day Colfax/Alta Service Provide Service to Thunder Valley Casino 30-Minute Peak Period Highway 49 Service Status Quo Fixed-Route/Commuter Service Provide Service Along Stanford Ranch Road Provide Granite Bay DAR Using Roseville Potential Service Between Auburn and Folsom Status Quo Alta Regional & Contracted Services 30-Minute Peak Period Auburn / Light Rail Service Potential Service to Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Area Increase Hwy. 49 DAR Service to Match Fixed-Route Hours Extend Hwy 49 & Sierra College to Match Auburn / Light Rail Extend Fixed-Route/Commuter Weekday Service by One Run Extend Fixed-Route/Commuter Weekday Service by Two Runs Potential Service to Uninc. Placer County W. & S.W. of Roseville 30-Minute Peak Period Lincoln / Rocklin Sierra College Service

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 9, Page 26 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Thousands $1,313.5 $289.3 $205.2 $200.2 $195.4 $185.1 $173.9 $151.8 $149.6 $108.0 $102.1 $91.7 $87.1 $65.2 $43.3 $22.6 $13.1 $1.2 Total Annual Operating Subsidy ($15.9) ($500) $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 Operate Sunday Service Annual Operating Subsidy Provide All-Day Colfax/Alta Service Provide Saturday 60-Minute Service FIGURE 49: PCT Service Alternatives Provide Mid-Day Colfax/Alta Service Provide Service to Thunder Valley Casino 30-Minute Peak Period Highway 49 Service Status Quo Fixed-Route/Commuter Service Provide Service Along Stanford Ranch Road Provide Granite Bay DAR Using Roseville Potential Service Between Auburn and Folsom Status Quo Alta Regional & Contracted Services 30-Minute Peak Period Auburn / Light Rail Service Potential Service to Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Area Increase Hwy. 49 DAR Service to Match Fixed-Route Hours Extend Hwy 49 & Sierra College to Match Auburn / Light Rail Extend Fixed-Route/Commuter Weekday Service by One Run Extend Fixed-Route/Commuter Weekday Service by Two Runs Potential Service to Uninc. Placer County W. & S.W. of Roseville 30-Minute Peak Period Lincoln / Rocklin Sierra College Service

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 9, Page 27

The operating effectiveness of the alternatives, measured in terms of marginal one-way passenger-trips per vehicle service hour, is depicted in Figure 50 below. This figure is often referred to as “productivity.” It should be noted that the overall productivity of the fixed- route/commuter service under the Status Quo alternative is anticipated to be 10.8, while that of the Alta Regional and Contracted Services would be 5.7. As presented in the graphic, the 30- Minute Peak Period Auburn / Light Rail Route Service option would be the most effective, estimated to attract 11.2 marginal one-way passenger-trips per vehicle service hour, followed by the 30-Minute Peak Period Highway 49 Service option (8.5), the 30-Minute Peak Period Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College Service option (5.4) and the Potential Service to Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Area service alternative (5.1).

Another measure of productivity is the number of one-way passenger-trips per vehicle service mile. As presented in Figure 51 below, the Provide Service to Thunder Valley Casino service alternative would achieve the greatest number of passenger-trips per vehicle service mile (1.50), followed by the 30-Minute Peak Period Highway 49 Service (0.70), the 30-Minute Peak Period Auburn / Light Rail Service (0.37), the 30-Minute Peak Period Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College and Potential Service to Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Area service alternative options (0.28). The Provide Service to Thunder Valley Casino service alternative would achieve a negative figure, since it would increase ridership while reducing annual vehicle service miles traveled.

Figure 52 below presents the net subsidy per marginal one-way passenger-trip provided for the various alternatives. This “performance indicator” is probably the single best means of measuring transit alternatives, as it directly relates the goal of public transportation (to provide passenger-trips) to the basic resource required (public dollars). It should be noted that the net overall subsidy per passenger-trip under the Status Quo alternative would be $5.19 on the fixed- route/commuter service and $1.42 on the Alta Regional and Contracted Services program. A review of this information indicates the following:

As indicated in the figure, the Provide Service to Thunder Valley Casino service alternative would actually reduce the subsidy per passenger-trip, since under both alternatives the subsidy would be reduced while ridership would increase. This alternative would thus contribute net revenues to the program, since the revision would increase fare revenues while reducing annual operating costs.

Of those service alternatives that increase annual subsidy requirements, the Provide Service Along Stanford Ranch Road service alternative would be most cost-effective, since the subsidy per one-way passenger-trip would be only $0.14 per one-way passenger-trip, followed by the 30-Minute Peak Period Auburn / Light Rail Route Service option ($5.79) and the 30-Minute Peak Period Highway 49 Service option ($5.81).

In comparison, the Potential Service to Unincorporated Placer County West and Southwest of Roseville service option would require the greatest subsidy per passenger-trip ($55.58).

The operating farebox recovery ratio for each of the alternatives is presented in Figure 53 below. As the figure illustrates, the Provide Service along Stanford Ranch Road service alternative would achieve the greatest farebox recovery ratio (77.8 percent), since it would increase fare revenues by a large proportion in comparison to the anticipated increase in operating costs. The Provide Service to Thunder Valley Casino service alternative would achieve a negative figure

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 9, Page 28 Short Range Transit Plan Update

5 21 11.2 10.8 8.5 5.7 5.4 5.1 4.5 4.0 4.0 3.2 2.9 2.9 2.5 2.1 1.8 1.2 0.9 N/A N/A 03691 Ridership/VSH One-Way Passenger-Trips per Vehicle Service Hour Operate Sunday Service FIGURE 50: PCT Service Alternatives Provide All-Day Colfax/Alta Service Provide Saturday 60-Minute Service Provide Mid-Day Colfax/Alta Service Provide Service to Thunder Valley Casino 30-Minute Peak Period Highway 49 Service Status Quo Fixed-Route/Commuter Service Provide Service Along Stanford Ranch Road Provide Granite Bay DAR Using Roseville Potential Service Between Auburn and Folsom Status Quo Alta Regional & Contracted Services 30-Minute Peak Period Auburn / Light Rail Service Potential Service to Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Area Increase Hwy. 49 DAR Service to Match Fixed-Route Hours Extend Hwy 49 & Sierra College to Match Auburn / Light Rail Extend Fixed-Route/Commuter Weekday Service by One Run Extend Fixed-Route/Commuter Weekday Service by Two Runs Potential Service to Uninc. Placer County W. & S.W. of Roseville 30-Minute Peak Period Lincoln / Rocklin Sierra College Service

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 9, Page 29

1.50 0.70 0.48 0.37 0.30 0.28 0.28 0.23 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.07 (1.38) (2.0) (1.5) (1.0) (0.5) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Ridership/VSM One-Way Passenger-Trips per Vehicle Service Mile Operate Sunday Service FIGURE 51: PCT Service Alternatives Provide All-Day Colfax/Alta Service Provide Saturday 60-Minute Service Provide Mid-Day Colfax/Alta Service Provide Service to Thunder Valley Casino 30-Minute Peak Period Highway 49 Service Status Quo Fixed-Route/Commuter Service Provide Service Along Stanford Ranch Road Provide Granite Bay DAR Using Roseville Potential Service Between Auburn and Folsom Status Quo Alta Regional & Contracted Services 30-Minute Peak Period Auburn / Light Rail Service Potential Service to Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Area Increase Hwy. 49 DAR Service to Match Fixed-Route Hours Extend Hwy 49 & Sierra College to Match Auburn / Light Rail Extend Fixed-Route/Commuter Weekday Service by One Run Extend Fixed-Route/Commuter Weekday Service by Two Runs Potential Service to Uninc. Placer County W. & S.W. of Roseville 30-Minute Peak Period Lincoln / Rocklin Sierra College Service

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 9, Page 30 Short Range Transit Plan Update

$55.58 $25.70 $24.93 $20.95 $20.60 $17.37 $15.37 $14.19 $14.20 $13.86 $12.66 $10.69 $10.63 $5.81 $5.79 $5.19 $1.42 $0.14 ($1.19) ($15) $0 $15 $30 $45 $60 $75 Operate Sunday Service Operating Subsidy / Passenger-Trip FIGURE 52: PCT Service Alternatives Provide All-Day Colfax/Alta Service Provide Saturday 60-Minute Service Marginal Operating Subsidy Per One-Way Passenger-Trip Provide Mid-Day Colfax/Alta Service Provide Service to Thunder Valley Casino 30-Minute Peak Period Highway 49 Service Status Quo Fixed-Route/Commuter Service Provide Service Along Stanford Ranch Road Provide Granite Bay DAR Using Roseville Potential Service Between Auburn and Folsom Status Quo Alta Regional & Contracted Services 30-Minute Peak Period Auburn / Light Rail Service Potential Service to Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Area Increase Hwy. 49 DAR Service to Match Fixed-Route Hours Extend Hwy 49 & Sierra College to Match Auburn / Light Rail Extend Fixed-Route/Commuter Weekday Service by One Run Extend Fixed-Route/Commuter Weekday Service by Two Runs Potential Service to Uninc. Placer County W. & S.W. of Roseville 30-Minute Peak Period Lincoln / Rocklin Sierra College Service

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 9, Page 31

86.6% 77.8% 8.7% 7.9% 7.9% 4.5% 4.4% 4.3% 3.8% 3.4% 3.4% 3.3% 3.0% 2.7% 2.4% 2.2% 1.2% 0.9% Operating Farebox Recovery Ratio -71.5% -125% -100% -75% -50% -25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% Operate Sunday Service Operating Farebox Recovery Ratio FIGURE 53: PCT Service Alternatives Provide All-Day Colfax/Alta Service Provide Saturday 60-Minute Service Provide Mid-Day Colfax/Alta Service Provide Service to Thunder Valley Casino 30-Minute Peak Period Highway 49 Service Status Quo Fixed-Route/Commuter Service Provide Service Along Stanford Ranch Road Provide Granite Bay DAR Using Roseville Potential Service Between Auburn and Folsom Status Quo Alta Regional & Contracted Services 30-Minute Peak Period Auburn / Light Rail Service Potential Service to Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Area Increase Hwy. 49 DAR Service to Match Fixed-Route Hours Extend Hwy 49 & Sierra College to Match Auburn / Light Rail Extend Fixed-Route/Commuter Weekday Service by One Run Extend Fixed-Route/Commuter Weekday Service by Two Runs Potential Service to Uninc. Placer County W. & S.W. of Roseville 30-Minute Peak Period Lincoln / Rocklin Sierra College Service

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 9, Page 32 Short Range Transit Plan Update

(which is a positive result), since the operating costs would be reduced (a reduction of $15,930) while the farebox revenues are forecast to increase (by $6,640). None of the other service alternatives would achieve an operating farebox recovery ratio above the Status Quo Fixed- Route/Commuter Service alternative (8.7 percent).

As is presented in Table 63 and in Figures 48 through 53, 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 term or the 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.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 9, Page 33

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 9, Page 34 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Chapter 10 Placer County Transit Capital Alternatives

VEHICLE ALTERNATIVES

Fleet Size

As was presented in the Chapter 3, the current PCT fleet totals 19 fixed-route/commuter buses. Several of these are due for replacement during or shortly after the current seven-year planning horizon, and this significant expense must be planned for well in advance of the actual occurrence.

In addition, the service plan resulting from this study process may change the appropriate type and number of vehicles required. Based upon review of the service alternatives presented in Chapter 6, a service plan will be developed. The final service plan will then be used to identify an appropriate vehicle acquisition schedule.

Alternative Fuels

PCT’s currently has a fleet of eight CNG-powered buses and nine older-technology diesel- powered buses. 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. In addition, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) recently adopted a transit bus fleet rule that requires transit agencies to significantly reduce the tailpipe emissions of their fleet by 2015. Agencies are allowed to opt for either a “diesel path” or “alternative fuel path” to provide flexibility in determining their optimal fleet mix. In general, the requirements include:

An in-use fleet average requirement for oxides of nitrogen (NOx) that will encourage the retirement of the oldest, dirtiest diesel buses. This requires a minimum active fleet average of 4.8 grams per brake horsepower-hour (g/bhp-hr) of NOx. This requirement is the same for either path (diesel or alternative fuel).

A particulate matter (PM) retrofit requirement, with an emphasis on the dirtiest buses, to reduce diesel PM emissions. This requires that an after-treatment device that demonstrates 85 percent conversion efficiency be installed on engines that meet specified requirements. This requirement is the same for either path.

Low-sulfur diesel fuel must be used by all transit agencies by July 1, 2006 for agencies operating less than 20 urban buses, or July 1, 2002 for larger agencies. Low-sulfur diesel will reduce PM, though it is projected to cost an additional five to ten cents more per gallon. Use of low-sulfur fuel is required for both paths, though it is more important for agencies choosing the diesel path since most existing after-treatment technologies require low-sulfur fuel to operate efficiently and reliably.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 10, Page 1

Large transit agencies (greater than 200 urban buses) that choose the diesel path are required to procure three zero-emission buses by July 1, 2003, and use them in service for a minimum of one year.

Beginning in 2008, large transit agencies that choose the diesel path must ensure that at least 15 percent of its annual bus purchases are zero-emission buses. This requirement is delayed until 2010 for agencies that choose the alternative fuel path.

Both paths provide approximately the same NOx emission reductions over the lifetime of the fleet rule, though the alternative fuel path will provide greater PM reductions. A number of reporting requirements were also imposed as part of this rule.

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

Methanol

Most of the methanol used commercially in the United States is manufactured from natural gas, making it economical to use. The tailpipe emissions of methanol are generally considered to be about half as reactive as an equal mass of emissions from gasoline or diesel fuel, promoting its use to reduce ozone in urban areas, such as Los Angeles.

By volume, methanol has slightly more than half the energy content of diesel fuel and slightly more than half the energy content of gasoline. Due to the above characteristics, a methanol engine will consume a little over twice the volume of fuel per mile of service, as compared to a diesel engine.

Transit authorities in Los Angeles and Seattle have over recent years retired their methanol programs due to the fuel’s highly corrosive properties. After spending $102 million since 1989 on methanol buses, Los Angeles County transit officials declared their methanol anti-pollution program a failure. 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. 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.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 10, Page 2 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)

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, although the gap in price has closed considerably over the past two years. The fuel also has the potential to reduce NOx emissions and PM when compared to diesel. However, CNG engines still emit higher concentrations of HC and CO than recent diesel engines – two greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.

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 3,600 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.

According to a 1996 Department of Energy report, a CNG bus costs between $35,000 and $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, an expanded CNG refueling facility for PCT’s fleet would cost between $600,000 and $2,000,000 depending upon the ultimate capacity of the facility (economies of scale might be realized if a fueling facility could be shared with other CNG vehicle users). Additional costs would be incurred to upgrade the new maintenance facility (discussed below) with required safety features and to provide emergency response equipment and training.

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. 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

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 10, Page 3 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 that are not located close to a CNG engine warranty provider. CCCTA also cited experience by BC Transit in British Columbia, Canada. BC Transit started a two year comparison of 25 1996 New Flyer CNG-powered buses and 25 1996 New Flyer diesel-powered buses, all with Detroit Diesel engines. Results for the CNG fleet were as follows: the 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.

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)

LNG has only recently received attention as an alternative fuel. The potential advantages of the fuel lie in its economic considerations, where the fuel’s processing costs are much less than that of the other gaseous fuels. LNG also has a greater potential to reduce NOx and HC emissions when compared to diesel and gasoline fuels. Currently, the biggest obstacles facing LNG are the lack of availability and its storage and handling facility requirements.

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. LPG is also well established in its transit fleet applications. According to Alternative Transportation Fuel in the United States (R.F. Webb Corp., June 1989), approximately 350,000 LPG transit vehicles were in operation in the United States. In 1995, the Department of Transportation estimated over 750,000 LPG transit vehicles would be in operation by year 2000.

The disadvantage of the fuel is in the engine performance of transit vehicles using the fuel. According to the above citation, the conversion of a gasoline engine to LPG will usually cause a 10 to 15 percent power loss.

Hybrid Electric

An emerging vehicle propulsion technology that has recently gained national interest is 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.

According to a recent report in Metro Magazine (Pages 84 - 87, January 2003), 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

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 10, Page 4 Short Range Transit Plan Update conventional internal combustion engine propulsion systems. Another benefit of hybrid electric technologies is that it does not require a large infrastructure investment that is required for CNG or LNG technologies. However, the cost of a full-size heavy-duty hybrid electric vehicle is currently between $80,000 and $100,000 greater than a comparable conventionally-powered vehicle. In addition, conventional sealed-gel lead acid battery systems typically last only two to three years, and replacement units cost on the order of $10,000 to $15,000. Better battery technology currently exists that could extend battery life (i.e., nickel metal hydride), but this technology currently costs several times that of lead-acid batteries.

Hybrid electric propulsion systems are currently being tested at several large transit programs, most notably at New York City Transit. This agency has been testing 10 pre-production 40-foot hybrid electric buses since 1999, with generally positive results. New York City Transit currently has another 325 Orion VII hybrids on order. Other agencies currently testing 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.

Full electric vehicles and hydrogen-powered buses are two other emerging technologies that are being tested by several transit agencies, although many experts consider these technologies to be on the leading edge of current understanding. Considerable research is still necessary regarding the life cycle costs and benefits of these technologies before they should be considered as viable options for small transit agencies.

Diesel Fuel

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 PM.

Due to increasing environmental pressure to reduce the above emissions, the Environmental Protection Agency, working in concert with the American Public Transit Association, has developed stringent NOx and PM regulations. The final Clean Air Amendments permit the use of clean diesel in urban buses, provided that the clean diesel engines meet the PM standards imposed by the CAAA. 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.

Since the CAAA imposed regulations, diesel engine manufacturers have been successful in lowering NOx and PM tailpipe emissions by employing in-cylinder control techniques. Similarly important is that manufacturers have maintained the fuel’s economy.

Summary

To date, PCT has chosen to continue to pursue CNG-fueled buses. However, barring full conversion to alternative fuels, a number of steps can be taken to substantially reduce the air

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 10, Page 5 quality impacts of diesel-fueled transit buses. Various transit systems have been successful in reducing PM emissions through the application of “clean-diesel” technology. The utilization of a low sulfur fuel has proven to reduce the average annual PM emissions of a transit coach from 935 pounds to 260-300 pounds – roughly a 70 percent reduction. In addition, installation of an electronically-controlled fuel injection system and specially-designed transmission has dropped emission levels by 120 pounds of PM annually, for a total reduction in emissions of 87 percent.

Low-Floor Buses

Low-floor transit coaches are becoming the “standard” for urban fixed-route transit services around the country. For instance, Sacramento RT, Valley Transit Authority, Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority, and Modesto Area Express are examples of transit systems in northern California that are transitioning to low-floor buses. In comparison to the typical floor height of approximately 30 inches, low-floor buses require passengers to climb to only approximately 12 inches in height. In addition, low-floor buses typically use a simple fold-out ramp system to assist persons with transportation disabilities in boarding the bus – negating the need for a hydraulically-actuated lift system. The benefits of low-floor buses are that passengers typically find them more comfortable, and boarding and deboarding times are reduced.

The primary disadvantage of low-floor buses is the increased capital cost: the cost of a comparable diesel-fueled bus is approximately $300,000 for a 12-year/500-000-mile 35-foot bus, compared with $275,000 for a standard heavy-duty coach. Also, the number of seats on a low- floor bus is approximately four fewer than for a standard high-floor bus of similar length. (The reduced road clearance, which can be a problem for transit services in rural areas or in “snow country,” is not an on-going issue for the PCT fixed-route/commuter services.) Finally, low- floor buses are typically 102 inches wide, in comparison to the 96-inch width of the existing PCT buses. Operating a wider bus could become a problem in areas with particularly narrow streets.

This cost difference indicates that PCT would need to invest approximately $125,000 more over the seven-year study period to replace the five 1994 through 1997 Bluebird buses requiring replacement with 12-year low-floor models than to replace them with standard 12-year high- floor coaches. Assuming that 80 percent Federal / 20 percent local funds are available, the additional local funding required for low-floor coaches would be $25,000. As this investment would help PCT fixed-route/commuter services to attain on-time performance standards in the face of increasing traffic delays on local streets, however, this additional investment may be warranted.

Larger Bike Racks for Auburn / Light Rail Buses

Each PCT fixed-route/commuter bus currently feature Sportworks bicycle racks, which can accommodate up to two bicycles simultaneously. Although riders have submitted requests for additional bicycle capacity, until recently no viable on-bus bicycle rack existed which could accommodate a larger number of bicycles. Sportworks recently introduced its Trilogy® three- position bus bike rack. This larger rack uses the same brackets currently used on the standard

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 10, Page 6 Short Range Transit Plan Update two-position rack, and costs on the order of $600 per unit for the mild steel rack and $850 for the stainless steel rack (in comparison to $400 and $575, respectively, for the two-position units). However, according to recent correspondence from Orion Bus Industries, the new Trilogy bus bike rack will not work with PCT’s fleet of Orion VI buses. For this reason, PCT staff should continue to monitor bike rack capacity on its services, as well as the development of potential new bus bike rack technologies that may allow an increase in bicycle capacity.

Some transit agencies follow a policy of providing the driver with the discretion to allow passengers to carry bicycles onboard the bus when passenger loads allow. However, PCT’s relatively high level of passenger activity (particularly on the Auburn / Light Rail service) would substantially limit the periods in which this would be feasible. Bringing bicycles onboard the vehicle also can increase cleaning costs (to both the vehicles as well as to other passengers), can increase the potential for accidents, and can increase the potential for conflicts on PCT services when a full passenger load is experienced.

Consider On-Board Surveillance System

According to PCT staff, there is occasionally a need to address behavior problems on the fixed- route and commuter buses, particularly loud and abusive language by teen-age riders. One technology that has been implemented by transit and school bus agencies across the country is the use of on-board surveillance cameras. The leading technology uses a digital recording system that can simultaneously record several cameras at once. The Logan Transit District in Logan, Utah recently implemented a system that records activity in the rear of the bus (which is particularly difficult for the driver to monitor), the entrance and exit stairways, and the driver’s area. The system also includes voice recording abilities. This system cost approximately $2,000 per bus, plus approximately $2,500 for software and hardware needed at the operations base for transferring and storing the data. Based on the current fleet of fixed-route/commuter buses (as presented in Table16 in Chapter 3), it is estimated that it would cost on the order of $40,500 to implement a similar system on PCT’s fleet.

Recent advancements allow agencies to monitor driver actions, such as brake and throttle use, engine idling time and brake retarder use. Leading edge technologies allow agencies to monitor activity from a central base using radio frequency transmission, which is particularly useful for security purposes.

OTHER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

New Auburn Multimodal Station

The Elders Station Transfer Center in Auburn has grown to become the single most important stop on the entire PCT system. This stop also serves as the key transfer point between PCT, Auburn Transit, and Gold Country Stage. At present, the Elders Station Transfer Center consists of an attractive (though small) brick shelter located along the north side of Lincoln Way between High Street and Almond Street. Adequate curb space is provided for two small transit vehicles along Lincoln Way; but any additional vehicles must either pull into the parking lot behind the shelter, or queue along the street.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 10, Page 7

The Elders Station Transfer Center has a number of shortcomings:

Inadequate bus parking space – At present, up to three PCT vehicles, an Auburn Transit vehicle, and a Gold Country Stage vehicle typically are at this facility at peak times. This causes conflict between the various transit vehicles (which often must make backing maneuvers to exit the Center), and between transit vehicles and cars entering or exiting the parking lot. Both of these situations result in potential safety problems.

The lack of space precludes signage clearly identifying where specific buses will pull up.

Inadequate passenger facilities at the center; additional seating is needed.

Inadequate transit information is available at the location.

Due to these shortcomings, a new transfer center is being developed. The Auburn Multimodal Station is located at the intersection of Nevada Street and Blocker Drive / Fulweiler Avenue. In addition to serving transit passengers, this facility also provides access to the Capital Corridor rail system. Passenger amenities include four bus shelters with benches, one train shelter with benches, bicycle lockers, public restrooms, telephone, train and transit information kiosks, and 40 parking spaces (including disabled spaces). Additionally, there are four bus bays and a bus turnaround loop.

PCT is scheduled to commence serving the Auburn Multimodal Station on February 1, 2004, at which time PCT will no longer serve the Elders Station bus stop. Auburn Transit will provide transit links between downtown Auburn (including the Elders Station bus stop) and the new Auburn Multimodal Station. A discussion of this schedule can be found in the Auburn Transit Service Alternatives chapter below.

Other Bus Stop Passenger Amenities

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.

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. Many regional transit agencies have had benches provided by advertising firms at no cost to the agency. 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.

The cost of modern glass and steel shelters averages approximately $8,000 including installation for most areas, and appropriate transit benches range from $350 for a recycled plastic bench to

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 10, Page 8 Short Range Transit Plan Update

$550 for a vinyl-clad “stretched” steel bench not including installation. Maintenance and repair of vandalism to bus benches and shelters is a very minor cost as they are designed to be very resistant to vandalism. As a result, cleaning and maintenance costs are minor.

PCT should work closely with developers to plan passenger amenities and other transit-friendly features during the development phase of a project. In addition, staff should work with existing businesses and housing developments to provide passenger amenities in areas of existing or anticipated high transit passenger activity. A good “rule of thumb” is to plan benches at bus stops with 5 or more passenger boardings per day and shelters at bus stops with 15 or more passenger boardings per day. Consideration could also be given to bus stops that serve activity centers targeted toward the senior or disabled community. These persons often have difficulty standing for long periods of time, especially in harsh weather conditions.

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 transit trip. A key element of a successful transit system, therefore, is a convenient system of sidewalks and bikeways serving the transit stops. PCT should work with the other branches of the Department of Public Works as well as with the local jurisdictions to review construction plans and scheduling priorities for pedestrian and bicycle improvements to best coordinate with transit passengers' needs.

Park and Ride Facilities

The analysis of commuter transit demand provided in Chapter 4 underscores the growing long- term demand for commuter services. This growing demand will inevitably result in a substantial increase in park-and-ride parking demand. This growth can be expected for either an expansion in commuter bus service, or for vanpool services (though vanpool parking demand can be expected to be more dispersed than for bus service). As the growth of Placer County continues, the county may find that conditions are similar to those commonly found in California's major urban areas: transit ridership is limited more by the availability of park-and-ride parking than by the capacity of the transit vehicles.

In light of these factors, it will be important for park-and-ride facilities to be “sized” appropriately to the commuter services provided. This issue will be reviewed once commuter service plans are finalized as part of this study. A site that may warrant park and ride facility improvements is at the Bell / I-80 interchange.

Bus Wash System

PCT’s existing vehicle wash system is woefully undersized and also is in need of repair. As such, a reasonable alternative is to purchase a new wash system. In general, two types of wash systems appropriate for a small bus programs: a drive-through system, and a gantry-type system. The former system is typically designed for transit systems that operate 30 or more buses daily, and uses a relatively low amount of water. The bus proceeds slowly through the wash system, in which rotating wash brushes and water/soap nozzles are positioned in a stationary frame. In a gantry-type system, the bus parks in the wash bay, and the wash system proceeds back-and-forth over the bus. This latter system is commonly used for washing automobiles, as it uses sensors to

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 10, Page 9 position the brushes and/or nozzles to wash the vehicle; these types of systems are generally able to wash a greater variety of vehicles.

Given the fleet size and types of vehicles used by PCT, a gantry-type wash system would be most appropriate. A similar system was installed by the Logan Transit District in 1999, at a cost of $80,000 (including construction of the wash bay). This system is used to wash a variety of minibuses, mid- and full-size transit coaches and staff vehicles. No water recovery system is used in this system, as the sodium chloride used on the roads in Logan is very difficult to effectively remove; if a water recycling system would be desired in PCT’s system, the cost would increase on the order of $20,000.

Alternately, if PCT were able to partner with another transit provider (i.e., CTSA) on construction of a new wash facility, it might make sense to consider a drive-through system. A drive-through system typically only requires two to three minutes to wash a full-size bus, in comparison to four to five minutes with a gantry-type system. Over time, this reduction in staff time (and in water usage) can help pay for the additional $35,000 to $40,000 required for a drive- through system. The Consultant Team would caution PCT officials to avoid partnering with another public works department (i.e., solid waste), as transit buses and trucks may not be able to use the same system due to differing sizes and make-ups of the vehicles. This is particularly problematic for bobtail or tractor-trailer vehicles, as the drive-through systems do not do a good job washing the space between the cab and the cargo box. The extra staff time needed to manually wash this area could more than use up the savings accrued from a drive-through system. In addition, garbage trucks are notoriously dirty, which can cause the wash system to perform badly when washing a bus.

ADVANCED PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES

Recent advances in communication and communication technologies have impacted all segments of modern society, and have slowly found new applications in the transit industry. These technologies have come to be known as Advanced Public Transportation Systems (APTS). For purposes of the PCT operating environment, there are three promising technologies within the APTS umbrella that have been developed over recent years: Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) systems, Demand Responsive Dispatching (DRD) capabilities, and Automated Transit Information (ATI) systems.

Automatic Vehicle Location

Originally developed in the trucking and package delivery industries, AVL has increasingly found application within transit services. Indeed, only four transit agencies in the United States used AVL technologies in 1991 and this number increased to 61 by 1999, with an additional 93 in the planning stage. AVL employs in-vehicle transponders and a central geographic mapping system using geopositioning 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 50 feet. This map can also display direction

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 10, Page 10 Short Range Transit Plan Update of travel, on-time status (a different color for vehicles operating behind schedule, for example), and potentially the number of passengers on board.

Early transit AVL systems relied on electronic “signposts,” consisting of monitors placed throughout a transit system that could detect and report to the center computer the passage of a specific vehicle. Between signposts, vehicle location could only be estimated based upon the schedule. This strategy proved to be cumbersome (as route changes would require modifications of the signposts), and not adequate for demand-response services. Later systems attempted to use LORAN-C radio receivers; this system, however, is often susceptible to electromagnetic interference. In recent years, however, the development of relatively low-cost Global Positioning System (GPS) technologies using satellite triangulation to identify location has largely replaced these other technologies.

The Regional Transportation District in the Denver area implemented an AVL system for 833 fixed-route buses, as well as 66 supervisor vehicles, at an estimated cost of $10,400,000. The Dallas Area Rapid Transit system is installing an AVL system for a total of 844 buses, 216 commuter coaches, 245 demand-response vans, and 300 supervisor vehicles. Similar systems have been installed in the following locations: Chicago, Baltimore, Rochester, and Portland. A traffic signal priority system has been successfully implemented as part of Portland’s AVL system.

AVL technologies open up a range of additional services and benefits:

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires transit systems to provide voice announcements prior to major transit stops, to allow the visually impaired to more easily use transit services. Drivers, who are often more than busy coping with traffic congestion, find it difficult to consistently provide these announcements. With AVL, vehicle location and direction of travel can be used to trigger a computer processor on a transit vehicle to automatically make a synthesized announcement, and also potentially to display a message inside the vehicle. This can also be potentially beneficial to alert visitors of major attractions along the fixed-routes.

An important benefit in larger urban systems is the ability for drivers to trigger a silent alarm, which automatically dispatches police to a bus. The response time to criminal activity on a bus is greatly reduced.

Pre-emption of traffic signals to allow quick passage for transit vehicles is also possible. Tying the GPS system into the traffic signal’s computer can trigger an extended green indication for buses approaching a signal. This option could potentially be used for all buses, or be limited to those buses operating behind schedule or those carrying relatively high passenger loads. The ability to identify vehicle location in “real time” is critical to the success of any advanced technology transit service, particularly along routes with relatively low service frequency.

Finally, automatic passenger counters (APC) record passenger activity by bus stop and time of day. The cost of this technology has decreased substantially over the past several years, equating to $1,000 to $1,200 per bus if installed at the same time the AVL system is

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 10, Page 11

installed. This type of technology would allow PCT staff to better assess ridership patterns at key bus stops.

Demand Responsive Dispatching

DRD technologies uses the computing speed of modern computers to match incoming ride requests with available vehicle capacity to most efficiently assign vehicles to serve passenger requests. This can be a very demanding computing task, as the number of potential combinations of passenger assignments to even a small fleet of vehicles can be extremely large: the computer must assess the time required under each potential assignment within a few seconds, taking into consideration the travel time impacts on passengers already aboard the vehicles, as well as the potential for transfers.

Because the demand is constantly changing with new ride requests and rides being completed, the system must readjust the optimum utilization of the fleet of vehicles continually. How the system knows to assign a ride request to a particular vehicle is based on several factors. These include vehicle location, vehicle load, vehicle destination, and caller location and destination. The system may also consider specific needs of the current passengers if the system is programmed to do so. Ride requests can be generated from a number of sources, including phone requests (either using a human operator or through a voice mail system), a “touch pad” at specific transit stops, or specialized touch pads at important trip generators (such as social service facilities or lodging properties).

A variety of software packages have been developed to allow “real-time” dispatching to varying degrees. With names such as “ParaMatch™,” “EasyRides®,” “MIDAS-PT,” “ParaLogic,” “PASS,” many of these systems have been designed for demand response systems for elderly persons and persons with disabilities. The LTD in Logan has recently implemented EasyRides® for its Call-A-Ride and Lifeline services, and provides a good example of the benefits of DRD technologies for a small transit agency.

Some of these dispatching programs allow data to be relayed to the driver via radio frequency communications to a liquid crystal display text screen mounted next to the dashboard, commonly called mobile data terminals (MDTs). This data is continually updated to display the driver’s next several pickup and delivery points. If MDTs are implemented, local officials should ensure the dispatch programs could communicate appropriately with these units.

Automated Transit Information

Once AVL and DRD technologies are put in place, it is a relatively straightforward process to automatically provide passengers with “real-time” information regarding transit services. Provided with vehicle location, vehicle travel speed, and the passenger’s desired service point, a computer can readily estimate the number of minutes before service is actually provided. This information can be disseminated in a number of ways:

Automated phone systems can be used to provide information. Transit passengers in the Ottawa, Ontario area, for example, can call Ottawa-Carlton Transit, punch in their bus stop number and desired route, and be provided with the next several service times at their stop.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 10, Page 12 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Video terminals placed in transit terminals and shopping malls are also used to provide “real time” arrival and departure times in Halifax, Nova Scotia and Broward County, Florida. A similar system is currently installed at various locations around Anaheim, California (including the Anaheim Stadium and the Hilton) providing real-time traffic congestion information. Overseas, real-time information is already widely provided in Stockholm, Sweden, and Osnabruck, Germany.

Potential Applications for Placer County Transit

A number of factors indicate that the innovations in transit technologies have a high potential for successful application at PCT:

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 PCT routes. The importance of this information may well grow in the future, as increasing congestion along the transit routes reduces schedule reliability.

With aging of the population, demand for demand response services is expected to grow substantially. AVL and MDT technology would be extremely useful in maximizing the efficiency of demand response services, particularly with regard to service in unincorporated Placer County.

At present, experience at other similar-sized transit services indicates that PCT’s current services are not quite at the “critical mass” at which APTS technologies can be cost-effective. As the system grows in response to growth in the community, or as the cost and dependability of these technologies improves, PCT should carefully consider an investment in APTS systems as a means of improving service quality while also increasing service effectiveness.

Consider Traffic Signal Priority

The provision of AVL technology opens the possibility of “traffic signal preemption” technologies that provide additional signal “green time” as buses approach traffic signals. Many transit systems operating along congested roadways have found this technology provides a substantial benefit, as buses can operate over shorter schedules and the amount of “make up time” provided in the schedules to accommodate traffic signal delays can be reduced. As a result, the capital and maintenance costs associated with the preemption system can, under specific conditions, be more than offset by operational cost savings.

Rather than always providing buses with a green signal, these systems simply extend the length of green time up to a predetermined limit as buses approach the signal. They are designed to not unduly impact overall traffic delays. A nearby system of similar size that has invested in such a program is Napa VINE transit service, which implemented an AVL system on the entire 18- vehicle fleet in 1995 (including signal preemption when routes are behind schedule). This system is credited with improving on-time performance and cutting operating costs. A similar system may be beneficial for PCT particularly near the transit centers where multiple routes pass through signalized intersections.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 10, Page 13

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 10, Page 14 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Chapter 11 Placer County Transit Other Alternatives

INSTITUTIONAL AND MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

Coordination Opportunities with Major Employers

Several areas have seen success in increasing the use of alternatives to driving alone by encouraging large employers to develop incentive programs. Typically, employers that actively encourage alternatives to driving alone have a higher percent of employees participating in carpools and other alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle. Employers that offer transit subsidies and that actively market these subsidies generally can reach a rate of about four percent of employees using transit. Employer participation in such programs in California has declined since the requirement for employers to have trip-reduction programs was eliminated. However, many large employers have continued their efforts by coordinating rides, marketing the benefits of transit, and providing incentives to their employees to utilize the various alternatives.

Cities, counties, and major employers need to coordinate their transit services and incentive programs to ensure there is not a duplication of effort. A common way in which to divide the work is to have the employer survey the employees to assess their transit needs and preferences and assist in ride matching for carpools and other services. The city or county then provides the vehicles and drivers to operate the service. This coordination works particularly well if the employer also provides a financial incentive for employees to use their preferred mode of transit.

In some metropolitan areas, transit agencies are offering incentives directly to employers. For example, Santa Clara County offers transit passes to employers at a discount rate. To receive the discount, employers are required to purchase passes for all employees of the company, regardless of whether they use the pass or not. The program has shown success in increasing transit ridership. The primary advantage to the program for the employee is that he or she does not have to deal with paperwork (e.g., applying for a reimbursement), instead they automatically receive the pass.

Contra Costa County manages a SMARTPool Vanpool Program offering new riders a 50 percent discounted rate for the first three months. Almost anyone who lives or works in the county and commutes 30 to 60 miles round-trip is eligible for the program. The discount rate has been a strong incentive in increasing ridership.

PCT currently operates a vanpool program comprising ten vanpools, with an average of ten participants each. The county pays for the gas and the lease of the vans. The vans are provided and insured by VPSI. Fares cover approximately 50 percent of the cost of the service. PCT may wish to look at opportunities to expand the existing program, if major employers can be persuaded to finance a larger portion of the cost of the service.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 11, Page 1

Revisions to Marketing Program

Unlike many other public sector endeavors, marketing is an essential element of a cost-effective public transit service. Residents essentially must use many public services (such as public safety or sewer/water); outside the truly transit-dependent, however, use of a transit service is a discretionary choice for most residents. This choice cannot be rationally made without a clear understanding of the mobility options provided by public transit services. A focused marketing effort using a modest budget (typically roughly three percent of total operating budget) is key in ensuring that the substantial public resources used by a transit service are well utilized. PCT may wish to increase marketing in order to expand ridership through a cost-effective strategy using local media:

Improve the Existing Marketing Materials. The format of the current PCT schedule, though convenient for reference to one route at a time, is not convenient for determining connection times for transferring between routes. The PCT schedule should be redesigned by a professional marketing firm. This process is estimated to cost approximately $20,000 for layout of camera-ready materials. In addition, printing costs would be incurred.

Targeted Marketing. Due to the size of the PCT service area, the transit system operates a number of specific services within various communities. Experience in marketing for similar transit systems indicates that the most effective use of media is a moderate level of continuing advertisement exposure in local newspapers, providing information tailored for the paper's readership. Western Placer County's location as part of the greater Sacramento media market results in very limited radio and television marketing opportunities focused on the Placer County communities; the majority of local residents rely on Sacramento stations for radio and television. As a result, print media is a particularly important and cost-effective marketing opportunity for local transit services.

Small ads could be placed in local papers on an ongoing basis, detailing the services available to the specific readership area. Schedules and route maps provided in these placements should clearly outline the connections that can be made from each community, and the convenience of the transit services. In addition, these print advertisements should clearly communicate that PCT services are available to all types of passengers, rather than solely the elderly or disabled. This strategy is particularly important in assuring ridership for new services.

A focused effort to attract ridership to and from the Roseville Galleria could be undertaken cooperatively between PCT and Roseville Transit (and possibly Lincoln Transit, which provides weekly service to the facility using a demand response minibus, primarily targeting seniors). This facility has the potential to increase ridership significantly, given its stature as a major activity center, as well as a major employer in the region.

Inserts to County Mailings. As an element of the County, PCT potentially has the ability to include marketing materials in existing county mailings, such as voter registration packets. This strategy allows focused mailings to new residents, or to specific geographic areas, at relatively low cost.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 11, Page 2 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Sierra College Marketing. In light of the importance of Sierra College student ridership to PCT and the continual turnover of student population, it is important for PCT to specifically market to the College community. A presence at activity fairs, advertising in the student newspaper, and free-fare days for persons with a valid student ID are all appropriate elements of a student marketing program.

Transit User Group Presentations. PCT staff could make personal presentations to local transit user groups, such as senior centers, disabled groups, schools, and civic groups in these areas. As part of these presentations, members of these groups should be educated with regard to how to use the service and the destinations available through the service, and they should be provided with a free round-trip ride coupon. A slide or video presentation can be an effective part of this program. Preferably, this program would include an actual ride on the service. In addition to increasing awareness of PCT's services, this marketing element can effectively reduce or eliminate residents' uncertainties regarding the use of public transit services.

Expanded Pass Outlets. Monthly passes and multi-ride ticket books are currently available from PCT drivers, at the PCT office in Auburn, at Sierra College and at the Rainbow Market in Lincoln. PCT could consider expanding the number of outlets to ease the ability of users to purchase monthly passes. PCT could work with its contracted marketing firm to approach additional supermarkets in the PCT service area, large employers (Roseville Galleria, Hewlett-Packard and the medical facilities in Roseville) and other municipalities (cities of Auburn, Lincoln, Loomis, Rocklin and Roseville). As the use of monthly passes speeds the boarding process (in comparison to cash fares and the need to issue transfers), this effort could improve on-time performance of the system.

Strengthen the Congestion Management Program. The City of Roseville and PCTPA currently implement a coordinated Congestion Management Program (CMP) that promotes alternatives to the drive alone commute – including transit. It is funded with Congestion Mitigation Air Quality funds. Roseville staff focuses on their city while PCTPA’s effort is focused on countywide needs. It would be beneficial to designate a contact person at Placer County to help with implementation of the CMP.

Implement Coordinated Marketing Plan. A coordinated transit marketing plan was recently accepted by the PCTPA Board, and PCTPA staff is currently working with each transit operator in western Placer County to implement the recommendations of the plan. Elements include membership the American Public Transportation Association PT2 program, coordination of speakers/presentations, targeted marketing campaigns, and a consolidated marketing package containing all of the transit operators’ information.

Implement an Education Program For Institutional Users of DAR Service

Another strategy is to implement a program to educate institutional users (such as social service agencies and medical offices) with regard to the requirements and limitations of the demand response program contracted to CTSA. Specifically, institutions, passengers, and the program could benefit if greater knowledge is available regarding factors such as the following:

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 11, Page 3

The availability of capacity on the service in various times of the day. The ability of institutions to take advantage of relatively “slack” periods of the day in scheduling their client's trips can reduce frustration with the service, and can improve the overall productivity of service by providing more even demand for service.

Reservation procedures and passenger eligibility. Providing “official” information regarding service policies will minimize the confusion generated by “word of mouth” information.

The impact that last-minute changes in pickup times has on the system. A greater understanding of the program’s difficulty in rescheduling return trips from medical appointments, in particular, would encourage more timely completion of DAR passenger’s appointments.

The costs associated with DAR service in relation to fixed-route and overall costs, and the financial limitations of the program. This information would foster an improved understanding of the abilities and limitations of the program.

To some degree, PCT is already undertaking this type of effort. Indeed, PCT and CTSA have a good working relationship with the various social service agencies in the region, and in some cases have negotiated mutually beneficial service contracts. Nonetheless, at a minimum, written information should be developed and distributed to major DAR trip destinations. Preferably, PCT and/or CTSA staff would make presentations at social service agency staff meetings and to professional organizations.

FINANCIAL ALTERNATIVES

Modifications to Current Fare Structure

One option to increase funding would be to increase the passenger fares. Sooner or later, inflation requires all transit operators to consider an increase in the adult base one-way fare. 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) that 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. This funding alternative, moreover, would affect those most in need of transit service: the low-income who cannot afford an automobile.

Currently, PCT has a base adult fare of $0.75. Generally, all other fare categories (e.g., elderly, disabled, child, or student) are determined based on the adult base fare. The question of whether or not to raise fares is a difficult one for the transit operator because, of course, an increase in fares can be expected to lead to a decrease in ridership. The effects of the expected increase in fare revenues must be balanced against the effects of the expected decrease in ridership to determine if the overall impact of the proposed fare increase is likely to be positive or negative.

An analysis was performed of the potential effects of an increase in the base adult fare from $0.75 to $1.00, and from $0.75 to $1.25. Conversely, to meet the requirements of FTA for

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 11, Page 4 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Section 5307 recipients, PCT must offer half-fares to elderly and disabled riders during non-peak periods. To avoid confusion, most transit agencies offer half-fares to elderly and disabled riders throughout the service day, instead of only during non-peak periods. In light of the half-fare requirement, the Consultant Team analyzed reducing the fare charged elderly persons and persons with disabilities from $0.60 to $0.50 for the $1.00 base fare option; the fare charged to elderly persons and persons with disabilities would remain at $0.60 under the $1.25 base fare option. The estimated impact to ridership due to the potential fare revision was assessed using an elasticity analysis. Consistent with the observed effect of recent fare increases in similar cities, a value of -0.30 was used for the elasticity of ridership demand to a fare increase.

The elasticity analysis suggests the following:

Increase to $1.00 Base Fare – An initial reduction in fixed-route/commuter ridership due to the potential fare increases of approximately 15,900 in annual full-fare ridership, and an increase of approximately 3,600 in annual ridership by elderly persons and persons with disabilities (assuming that roughly 75 percent of riders would pay full fare, and 25 percent would pay the deeper discounted 50 percent fare). Thus, a total reduction in annual ridership of approximately 12,300 trips (a 5.0 percent reduction) would be expected in the short-term. It should be noted that many of these riders would be recaptured over time as they realize that the fares were increased due to the effects of inflation. Factoring existing farebox revenues by the changes in fare levels and the net reduction in ridership suggests that the net impact on annual fare revenue would be an increase of approximately $27,570.

Increase to $1.25 Base Fare – under this option, the potential fare increase would initially reduce full-fare ridership by 27,320 (discounted ridership would remain unchanged), using the same assumptions discussed above. However, annual farebox revenues would increase by $62,010.

Future Modifications to the Fare Structure

Sooner or later, inflation requires all transit agencies to consider an increase in the adult base one-way fare. The question of whether or not to raise fares is difficult for transit agencies because, of course, an increase in fares can be expected to result in a short-term decrease in ridership. The effects of the expected increase in fare revenues must be balanced against the effects of the expected decrease in ridership to determine if the overall impact of the proposed fare increase is likely to be positive or negative.

Even if the fare revisions discussed above are implemented, it will likely be necessary to occasionally increase the PCT fare structure to maintain the minimum farebox recovery ratio in order to keep up with inflation. In short, assuming 3.0 percent annual inflation and a Fiscal Year 2004-05 base fare increase to $1.00, the base adult cash fare should be considered for a $0.15 increase in Fiscal Year 2008-09 (to $1.15 for an adult base fare) and a $0.10 increase in Fiscal Year 2011-12 (to $1.25).

Although these fare increases does not correspond exactly with the 3.0 percent inflation rate assumed for operating costs, it would provide for increases that minimize the number of coins required for boarding the service (thereby minimizing the time and inconvenience associated with fare payment). Moreover, the increases are warranted due to anticipated rising costs. The

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 11, Page 5 impact to ridership due to the Fiscal Year 2008-09 fare increase, given existing trends under the Status Quo service plan and projected population growth, is anticipated to initially eliminate approximately 21,570 annual one-way passenger-trips. However, since this fare increase would be implemented to account for inflation, most if not all passenger-trips would be regained over time. This fare increase would add approximately $28,580 in annual farebox revenues.

Provide Fare-Free Fixed-Route Service For ADA-Eligible Passengers

Transit services are increasingly choosing to offer “free” rides on fixed-route service to ADA- eligible passengers. For instance, this policy is in effect at the Utah Transit Authority in Salt Lake City. While this policy reduced fixed-route fare revenues to a small degree, it results in a substantially greater reduction in DAR operating subsidy as passengers shift from the more expensive DAR service to the less expensive fixed-route service.

Relevant Transit Funding Sources

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. A wide number of potential transit funding sources are available, particularly within California. The following discussion provides an overview of these programs.

Federal Funding Sources

Through the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21), the Federal government has substantially increased transit funding levels for smaller urban areas. In addition, changes in program requirements have provided increased flexibility in the use of federal funds. Following are discussions of federal transit funding programs for which PCT is eligible.

FTA Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program

An important source of transit funding for smaller cities across the country is the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 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. In small urbanized areas (i.e., areas with populations between 50,000 and 200,000), these funds can be used for operating assistance at a ratio of 50 percent Federal and 50 percent local. In FTA Fiscal Year 2001-02 (October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2002), a total of $3,207,052,091 was available nationwide, of which $518,704,526 was apportioned to California.

Since portions of PCT’s service area was incorporated into the Sacramento Urbanized Area as a result of the 2000 Census, those portions of PCT’s services within the expanded urbanized area are no longer eligible for FTA Section 5311 funds for operating or capital assistance. PCT and other entities that were incorporated into the Sacramento Urbanized Area have recently formed a working group to determine how FTA Section 5307 funds should be equitably distributed. This urbanized designation is particularly onerous for entities that previously used FTA Section 5307 or FTA Section 5311 Nonurbanized Area Formula Program funds for operating assistance.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 11, Page 6 Short Range Transit Plan Update

FTA Section 5309 Capital Program

These grants are split into three categories: New Starts, Fixed Guideway Modernization, and Bus and Bus Facilities. These funds were formerly apportioned directly by the FTA; however, Congress has earmarked these funds directly now for several years. If urbanized, a duly authorized recipient of FTA funds has to first program all of its FTA Section 5307 funds before FTA Section 5309 funds can be expended – thus, it is imperative that a recipient program all of their FTA Section 5307 funds (i.e., for bus replacement or expansion) before the FTA will allow access of the FTA Section 5309 funds apportioned by Congress. In FTA Fiscal Year 2001-02, $613,751,658 was available nationally for bus and bus facilities projects. California transit programs similar to PCT have received funding through this source. For instance El Dorado County, Monterey, Stockton and Sacramento have been allocated funds to purchase commuter buses, while Davis, Modesto and Santa Clara received funds for construction of maintenance facilities, and Tahoe City, Folsom and Santa Rosa received funding for construction of transit passenger facilities.

These funds are extremely competitive, and all funds have been earmarked directly by Congress over the past several years. Thus, if PCT officials decide to pursue these funds, a concerted lobbying campaign will need to be undertaken to gain support of the local Congressional delegation.

FTA Section 5310 Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program

FTA funds are also potentially available through the FTA Section 5310 Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program, which are largely used to fund vehicle purchases in California. Until recently, recipients of FTA Section 5310 funding were restricted to non-profit organizations; with passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and subsequent TEA-21, however, local governmental jurisdictions are also eligible for funding. Fiscal Year 2001-02 apportionments totaled $27,911,737 nationwide, of which $8,077,729 was available in California.

FTA Section 5311 Nonurbanized Area Formula Program

Federal transit funding for rural areas is currently provided through the FTA Section 5311 program. A 20 percent local match is required for capital programs and a 50 percent match for operating expenditures. These funds are segmented into “apportioned” and “discretionary” programs. The bulk of the funds are apportioned directly to rural counties based upon population levels. Fiscal Year 2001-02 apportionments total $84,930,249 nationwide, of which $10,552,607 was available in California.

FTA Section 3037 Job Access and Reverse Commute Program

The list of eligible applicants for this program, funded through TEA-21, includes states, metropolitan planning organizations, and public transit agencies, among others. Although the program has an emphasis on using funds to provide transportation in rural areas currently having little or no transit service, it is not limited to such areas. Funding for JARC grants is authorized at $150 million annually beginning in Fiscal Year 1999-2000, including up to $10 million for Reverse Commute Grants, although only $125 million was apportioned nationally in Fiscal Year

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 11, Page 7

2001-02. California projects were earmarked a total of $15,000,893. A 50/50 Federal/local match is required. Other Federal funds can be used as part of the local match.

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ)

Another source of funding for many transit services across the country has been provided by the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement program, first authorized in ISTEA and subsequently re-authorized through TEA-21. This funding is available to areas that are not in compliance with Federal air quality standards regarding ozone or carbon monoxide.

State Funding Sources

Transportation Development Act

A mainstay of funding for transit programs in California is provided by the Transportation Development Act (TDA). The TDA provides two major sources of funding for public transportation: the Local Transportation Fund (LTF), which has been in existence since 1972, and the State Transit Assistance (STA) fund, which was instituted in 1980.

Local Transportation Fund. The major portion of TDA funds are provided through the LTF. These funds are generated by a ¼ cent statewide sales tax, returned to the county of origin. The returned funds must be spent for the following purposes:

Two percent may be provided for bicycle facilities.

The remaining funds must be spent for transit and paratransit purposes, unless a finding is made by the Transportation Commission 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.

As presented in Figure 12 in Chapter 2, PCT directly received approximately $2.5 million from this source in Fiscal Year 2001-02 for transit service. Placer County also used LTF funds for Tahoe Area Regional Transit ($70,000), a contribution to Roseville ($10,000 for County residents’ use of Roseville Transit commuter services), Foothill Volunteer Center ($10,000) and CTSA ($22,000). In addition, Placer County used $2,032,000 for roadway needs.

State Transit Assistance. 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. In Fiscal Year 2001-02, PCT received approximately $246,367 from this source.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 11, Page 8 Short Range Transit Plan Update

State Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Funding

The State of California also funds the Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program. This program funds ridesharing and transit programs.

Local Funding

AB 2766 Vehicle Air Pollution Fees

California Assembly Bill 2766 allows local air quality management districts to levy a $2.00 to $4.00 annual 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 capital local transit programs.

Sales Tax

A sales tax election could be held with funds to go to transit service. Sales tax is the financial base for many transit services in the American 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, of course, 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 that 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 voter's traditional reluctance 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.

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 are comparatively low.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 11, Page 9

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 11, Page 10 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Chapter 12 Placer County Transit Short Range Transit Plan

In light of the characteristics and transit needs of the study area as documented in previous chapters, the following Short Range Transit Plan has been developed for PCT. The Plan is intended to address the following factors:

The stated desire of local officials and the general public to maintain as much of existing services as possible, given limited financial resources.

The need to increase operating and capital funding over the Plan period to keep pace with inflation.

The need to adjust services to reflect changes in land use and associated transit demand patterns, and to maximize service effectiveness.

The need to address transit program issues through Service, Capital, Institutional and Financial modifications.

To meet the requirements of the ADA, TDA and the FTA.

The Plan presented below is based on three underlying assumptions:

Service quantities will expand, when warranted and financially feasible, over the next seven years in order to maintain and enhance service quality.

No new funding sources will become available for local transit programs during the seven- year Plan period, and the Plan must be financially sustainable within the existing funding sources.

The various Service, Capital, Institutional, and Financial elements of the Short Range Transit Plan are presented in the three sections below. Together, these Plan elements will increase access to transit services, fully meet the requirements of the ADA, and ensure that PCT services are financially sustainable. Finally, an Implementation Plan is presented to guide transit improvements over the next seven years.

SERVICE PLAN

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. This section provides a discussion of improvements to the transit services that will be implemented by PCT over the next seven years.

The discussion below presents service plan elements both provided directly by PCT, as well as changes in services funded wholly or in part through PCT but operated by CTSA (including the

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 12, Page 1

Foresthill service, Rocklin/Loomis Dial-A-Ride, Granite Bay Dial-A-Ride, and Highway 49 Dial-A-Ride). Additional details regarding these CTSA-operated elements can be found in the CTSA Short-Range Transit Plan.

Each Service Plan element is summarized below (detailed descriptions are provided in Chapter 9), and corresponding operating cost, ridership and farebox revenue tables are presented at the end of this chapter. These Service Plan elements are also summarized in Figure 54, as presented at the end of this chapter. Ridership for the status quo / base case scenario, as well as for each Service Plan element, is assumed to increase annually by the projected average rate of population growth in Placer County, equating to 2.9 percent annually (as presented in Table 7 in Chapter 2). It should be noted that new transit services typically take two full years to reach full ridership potential. As such, the ridership estimates for new services depicted in Table 65 at the end of this chapter reflect a 35 percent reduction factor in the first year and a 10 percent reduction factor in the second year. Modified services typically take one full year to reach full ridership potential. Accordingly, first year ridership for modified services is factored down 25 percent in Table 65.

Provide Peak Period Weekday 30-Minute Auburn / Light Rail Service

The current fixed-route/commuter service plan provides hourly headways, which is typical in smaller urban areas. In light of continued urbanization of the area and associated growth in transit needs, PCT will implement 30-minute service frequency on the Auburn / Light Rail route serving the Interstate 80 corridor between Auburn and RT Light Rail during the peak morning and afternoon periods in Fiscal Year 2005-06. Specifically, half-hour headways will be provided from 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. and from 3:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M.

This Service Plan element will increase annual operating costs by $223,800 in Fiscal Year 2005- 06, based on Fiscal Year 2002-03 unit costs factored upwards for inflation and on the anticipated increase in service quantities. Two additional peak vehicles will be required, which can be accommodated with the existing fleet. This Service Plan element is anticipated to increase annual ridership by 34,550 one-way passenger-trips, once full ridership potential is achieved in the second year of service. In addition to the increased ridership anticipated under this service improvement, on-time performance on the overall route is expected to improve as riders are “distributed” over a greater number of runs. This plan element will also allow more convenient transfer opportunities to other PCT and local transit routes.

Expand Lincoln/Rocklin/Sierra College Schedule to Match Auburn / Light Rail Schedule

Currently, PCT operates fixed-route/commuter service until 8:00 P.M. on the Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College route and 9:00 P.M. on the Auburn / Light Rail route. While this service termination time is equivalent to or later than many other similar systems, it does preclude access to evening recreational and social activities along the Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College route. Considering the hourly variation in ridership observed at similar systems operating later into the evening, PCT will extend Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College service to match Auburn / Light Rail service, providing service until roughly 9:00 P.M. Specifically, one additional northbound run and one additional southbound run will be added starting at 8:00 PM. In addition, the accompanying CTSA-provided demand response services will also be extended in order to meet the requirements of the ADA. This Service Plan element will be implemented in Fiscal Year

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 12, Page 2 Short Range Transit Plan Update

2005-06. Note that no parallel expansion in the hours of Highway 49 Route service is required, as the Auburn / Light Rail buses returning to the transit maintenance facility effectively serve the Highway 49 corridor after the end of the final Auburn/Light Rail runs.

The fixed-route portion of this Service Plan element will require $29,020 in annual operating funds and the demand response service will require $6,350, for a total of $35,370 in Fiscal Year 2005-06. No additional peak buses will be required, since this service modification will merely extend the hours operated by the existing vehicles. Once full ridership potential is achieved, this Service Plan element is projected to provide 1,840 annual one-way passenger-trips on the fixed- route service and 1,410 on the Dial-A-Ride service.

Modify Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College Route

Due to changing development patterns in Rocklin, PCT will revise the existing Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College service to serve newly-developed areas. Two modifications will be implemented in Fiscal Year 2005-06, as follows:

Implement Service to Thunder Valley Casino. Thunder Valley Casino, a Native American Indian Casino, is located at 1200 Athens Road in Lincoln, just off Industrial Boulevard, which is a frontage road along State Route 65. The facility is open 24 hours per day, employs approximately 2,200 persons. To serve this important commuter transit trip generator, the revised route will travel along Industrial Boulevard from the SR 65 / Twelve Bridges exit, stop at the Casino at Athens and Industrial Boulevard, and continue on to the Industrial Boulevard / Sunset Boulevard intersection. This commuter route revision would increase one-way route mileage by roughly 0.8 vehicle service miles.

Cease Service to the Atherton Road / Menlo Drive Business Park and Costco. Boardings at these two bus stops are currently very low. Ceasing service to this area will reduce the per trip mileage by 2.5 per run. In addition, service has recently been discontinued to the former Rocklin Wal-Mart facility, which has reduced the per trip mileage by another 1.0 mile. Together, these service modifications will reduce operating costs, while also providing more convenient service to the large majority of existing passengers. It should be noted that a bus stop will be implemented at Sunset Boulevard near Atherton Road as part of this modification.

It should be noted that this Service Plan element will not serve each and every work shift at the Casino, which operates 24 hours per day. Indeed, PCT’s weekday span of service will serve the Thunder Valley Casino from roughly 6:10 A.M. on the Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College route through 7:40 P.M. on the westbound Sierra College / Rocklin / Lincoln route. This span of service effectively only serves one primary employee shift, and will not serve the peak evening visitor activity period. PCT’s Saturday span of service is even more limited, and would provide the first Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College service to the Casino around 9:10 A.M. and the last Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College departure around 3:10 PM. This effectively eliminates the ability to serve Casino employees on Saturdays. Finally, PCT does not operate service on Sunday, which means that it would serve neither Casino employees nor guests on Sundays. If the Casino or another funding agency were willing to provide additional funding, PCT could consider implementing expanded Saturday service and/or Sunday service.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 12, Page 3

As the Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College will continue to primarily connect transfer centers and employment centers in Lincoln, Roseville, Rocklin and unincorporated portions of Placer County, it is considered a commuter service. As such, complementary ADA paratransit service would not be required under this Service Plan element. This service modification is projected to reduce annual operating costs by approximately $4,010, although it is anticipated to increase annual ridership by 21,810 one-way passenger-trips once full ridership potential is realized at the end of the first year of service. No additional vehicles will be required, since the existing fleet can be used. This Service Plan element will be implemented in Fiscal Year 2005-06.

Modify Service to the Sierra College Campus

Under the current service plan, both the Auburn / Light Rail and Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College services operate buses in the parking lot of the Sierra College campus in Rocklin. However, this service plan requires two to three minutes to negotiate the buses within this congested area and increases the potential for vehicle/vehicle or vehicle/pedestrian accidents. As such, PCT and Sierra College will jointly develop an enhanced bus stop on the periphery of the campus along Rocklin Road. This will require the identification of a suitable site in conjunction with City of Rocklin officials, and construction of a passenger shelter with adequate lighting, wheelchair accessibility and other minor passenger amenities (trash receptacle, landscaping, bicycle racks, etc.). No impact to operating cost is anticipated under this Service Plan element. Since on-time performance is anticipated to improve under this service modification, it could be argued that a small increase in ridership will result. However, to be conservative, this analysis assumes no impact to ridership or farebox revenues. As discussed in the Capital Plan section below, this project will require capital fund contributions from both PCT and Sierra College.

Saturday Service Frequency Improvements

The existing service plan calls for a reduced Saturday span of service, which is typical in small urban and rural areas. Specifically, the Highway 49 service operates from 8:30 A.M. to 5:46 P.M. using one bus, the Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College service operates from 9:00 A.M. to 3:48 P.M. using one bus, and the Auburn / Light Rail service operates from 9:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. using one bus. However, the use of a single bus on each service results in two-hour headways, which dissuades all but the most transit-dependent riders from using PCT services. As such, PCT will improve Saturday service by operating service every 60 minutes, and starting the Auburn / Light Rail run at 7:00 A.M. instead of 9:00 A.M. This Service Plan element will enhance connectivity with other transit providers in the region. It will be implemented in Fiscal Year 2005-06.

This Service Plan element will require an additional $69,450 in operating funds. This figure includes additional dispatching costs that will be incurred to begin the Auburn / Light Rail service at 7:00 A.M. The anticipated ridership under this Service Plan element is estimated at 4,590 additional one-way passenger-trips, or 90 per service day.

In-House Operation of Commuter Service Between Colfax and Downtown Sacramento

PCT recently contracted with Amador Stage Lines to begin operation of a new commuter service between Colfax and downtown Sacramento. This new service began in August 2004, serving Park-n-Ride lots along the I-80 corridor and major employment centers in downtown Sacramento

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 12, Page 4 Short Range Transit Plan Update with two morning and two afternoon round-trips using a peak of two buses. The buses, drivers and all vehicle maintenance are provided by the contractor as part of the two-year operating agreement. Under this Service Plan element, PCT will assume operation of the service in Fiscal Year 2007-08 using its own fleet of buses and in-house staff, pending an evaluation to be conducted in January of 2006.

Prior to determining the cost impacts of this Service Plan element, it is important to first summarize the new service. It serves the following locations along the I-80 corridor:

Downtown Colfax Loomis (Horseshoe Bar & Taylor Road) Clipper Gap Park-n-Ride Rocklin (Rocklin Road & Bush Street) Ophir Park-n-Ride Roseville (Taylor Road Park-n-Ride) Penryn Park-n-Ride

In addition, eight bus stops are identified in downtown Sacramento. The fare structure is designed around a three-zone system. This project will be funded for the first two years of service using a combination of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funds and LTF funds.

An estimated total of 3,048 annual vehicle service hours (3,463 paid driver hours) and 105,660 vehicle service miles will be operated under the contract with Amador, which will require approximately $346,590 in annual operating funds. Using these service levels and PCT’s Fiscal Year 2002-03 cost model (factored up 3 percent annually to account for inflation), operating this service in-house will require $284,200 in Fiscal Year 2006-07 – an annual reduction of approximately $83,500 (assuming Amador’s contracted rate also increase 3 percent for Fiscal Year 2006-07). Ridership on this new service is anticipated to be 20,570 annual one-way passenger-trips, once full ridership potential is achieved at the end of the second year of service. This ridership estimate is based on an analysis 2005 commute patterns depicted in the SACOG SACMET01 traffic demand model. It is anticipated that the average fare on this service is estimated to be at least $4.00, based on the fare structure, anticipated ridership levels from each zone fare and estimated use of each fare media.

Once established, this service should attain a farebox return ratio of 25 percent and require an operating subsidy not to exceed $10.00 per passenger - trip. In the first two years of service before full ridership potential is expected to be achieved, a farebox return ratio of 15 percent and an operating subsidy not to exceed $16.00 per passenger-trip shall be used as standards, so long as a positive trend is maintained.

Using in-house employees will provide a high level of control over the quality of the commuter service, and will allow PCT to respond to service challenges on a timely basis. The decision to bring this service in-house will be reviewed in January 2006, using actual ridership and cost data available at that time. It should be noted that this Service Plan element is dependent upon PCT procuring three new CNG-powered commuter buses by the beginning of Fiscal Year 2006-07. If PCT is unable to procure these vehicles by the implementation date, it should seek to extend the existing contract with Amador Stage Lines until PCT is able to receive and test the new vehicles.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 12, Page 5

Shift Alta Regional Center Contract to CTSA

At present, Alta Regional Center contracts with PCT to provide transportation services. It is more appropriate for this service to be provided by CTSA, as it is a contracted service with a social service program and it provides interjurisdictional services throughout western Placer County. With establishment of a contract between Alta and CTSA, PCT service will be eliminated starting approximately on April 1, 2005.

Revise CTSA Foresthill Service

While the Foresthill scheduled service has not performed efficiently in recent years, this can be attributed at least in part to a lack of public awareness of the service as well as a limited schedule that does not serve many trips. Accordingly, under this plan the following modifications to the service will be made on an experimental basis:

Existing services will be augmented by a mid-day round trip from Auburn to Foresthill and return, on Mondays and Thursdays. Specifically, a run will depart Auburn at 11:00 AM, start serving the Foresthill stops at 11:45 AM, and return to Auburn to serve stops between 12:45 PM and 1:00 PM. This schedule will provide for convenient transfers to other transit services at Nevada Station. If a holiday falls on the scheduled day of service, mid-day service will be provided on the following weekday. This will provide Foresthill residents with opportunities to make relatively short trips to Auburn in both the morning and afternoon, for shopping, medical, and personal errand purposes. Experience in other similar settings indicates that the ability to access urban services without the need to spend all day on the trip will generate increased ridership.

Service in Foresthill will be converted from fixed service to route deviation service. Rather than simply serving the five established stops in Foresthill, service will be provided to residences within a 3/4-mile travel distance of the existing route. Passengers will be able to request door-to-door service by calling prior to the beginning of the run for pick-up, or by simply making a request of the driver on the return.

Marketing of the Foresthill scheduled service will be expanded, as follows:

o PCT staff will develop an improved schedule brochure for the service, as well as a poster describing the service. Posters will be placed in stores, schools, and social service program offices. o Information regarding the service will be placed on the PCT and CTSA web sites. o PCT and CTSA staff will make marketing presentations in the Foresthill area, to groups such as Seniors, social service programs, service clubs, and business associations.

While the Foresthill volunteer program will be maintained, CTSA dispatchers and volunteers will be instructed to encourage use of the fixed route service, for those passengers for whom the improved fixed-route service can serve their needs.

The services should be monitored closely, including collection of ridership and farebox revenue by run and by day of week, as well as ridership generated at scheduled stops versus deviation requests. Service on-time performance should also be tracked. An initial review should be

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 12, Page 6 Short Range Transit Plan Update conducted after six months of revised service, to identify if any “mid-course corrections” are warranted. After one year of the revised service, a focused review of the service should be conducted. If the service is not attaining a 6 percent farebox return ratio at this time (and is therefore on track to ultimately attaining a 10 percent farebox return ratio), modifications and/or elimination of the service should be considered.

Revise CTSA Rocklin/Loomis Dial-A-Ride Service, Shifting Loomis Dial-A-Ride Service From Rocklin/Loomis DAR to Taylor Road Shuttle

At present, the Rocklin/Loomis Dial-A-Ride provides demand-response service to Loomis and to Rocklin within 3/4 miles of the Lincoln – Rocklin – Sierra College fixed route (including Rocklin High School), using one vehicle at any one time. In addition, the Taylor Road Shuttle provides demand-response service to Loomis, also using one vehicle at a time. In effect, this is redundant, since ADA riders in Loomis have a choice of two “demand response” services in the Taylor Road corridor. In order to increase overall efficiency, the Rocklin/Loomis Dial-A-Ride will be limited to Rocklin only.

This strategy will slightly increase the level of resources available for service in Rocklin. However, a review of CTSA Dial-A-Ride logs indicates that only roughly 7 percent of existing Rocklin/Loomis DAR trips begin or end in Loomis (or approximately 3 passenger-trips per day). On each of the three days of service evaluated, moreover, there were hours of the day (generally between 7:00 A.M. and 2:00 P.M.) during which four to five individual trips were provided using a single vehicle. These peak service requirements were generated by trip requests within Rocklin, rather than within Loomis. As four to five trips per vehicle-hour is a realistic maximum productivity rate for a dial-a-ride service in an area with Rocklin’s density of development, expansion of the Dial-A-Ride service area in Rocklin would not be feasible with the existing single vehicle, except if a lower quality of service is deemed acceptable during the peak service demand periods (such as requiring passengers to accept travel times further from their desired travel times). Based on the existing Loomis ridership levels, moreover, it can be assumed that ridership in Loomis will be simply shifted to the Taylor Road Shuttle, resulting in no net loss in ridership. Rather, it would provide a small increase in Dial-A-Ride capacity in Rocklin, increasing the service’s ability to accommodate future growth in ridership.

All of Rocklin could potentially be provided with Dial-A-Ride service if a second vehicle were to be operated. There are two general areas that currently are not provided with service:

The residential areas north and east of Stanford Ranch Road, Whitney Boulevard, and Midas Avenue, and north of Antelope Canal (though the High School and Middle School just to the east of these roads are served). This includes the Whitney Oaks neighborhood and the Clover Valley area.

The smaller residential area along Sierra College Boulevard south of the Boardman Canal in the southernmost portion of the city.

A review of the demographics in Rocklin (both those areas currently served and those areas not currently served) indicates that the current Dial-A-Ride service area encompasses approximately 80 percent of total demand. Factoring the current demand for service by hour by the corresponding increase in total demand if all of Roseville is served (and considering the capacity

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 12, Page 7

made available by elimination of the duplication of Loomis service), providing Dial-A-Ride service to all of Rocklin would require that a second vehicle be operated from approximately 6:30 A.M. through 9:30 A.M., and from 12:00 Noon through 3:00 P.M. Applying the CTSA cost equation, provision of this second vehicle would cost on the order of $35,300 per year. Annual ridership is expected to increase by approximately 2,000 passenger-trips per year, generating roughly $1,100 per year in fares. Total increase in annual subsidy would therefore equal roughly $34,200 per year. As farebox return ratio for this service would be only 3 percent, it can be concluded that provision of a second dial-a-ride vehicle to serve the remaining areas of Rocklin will not be cost-effective, at least within this short-range plan period.

Expand CTSA Rocklin Dial-A-Ride Service to Serve Trips To/From Roseville

Under this Service Plan element, the DAR resources currently used to provide DAR service in the Newcastle, Penryn and Loomis area will be used to instead provide expanded DAR service in Rocklin and into Roseville.

Under the current service plan, Rocklin DAR buses are permitted by the City of Roseville to provide service only to the Galleria transfer point, but are not permitted to provide service to other destinations in Roseville. Similarly, Roseville DAR buses are not permitted to serve destinations in Rocklin. In response to requests from area residents (particularly for medical visits), the Rocklin DAR service area will be amended to permit trips between Roseville and Rocklin. However, Rocklin DAR buses will not be permitted to provide trips entirely within Roseville; these trips will continue to be provided by Roseville DAR buses, unless prior permission is granted by Roseville Transit officials. Conversely, Roseville Transit buses will not be permitted to provide trips entirely within Rocklin without prior permission from PCT officials. This Service Plan element will be implemented in Fiscal Year 2005-06.

Given the large number of major activity centers in Roseville, this Service Plan element is anticipated to increase annual ridership by 10 percent, or approximately 960 annual one-way passenger-trips. Due to limited information on existing demand responsive services in this area, this ridership estimate should be considered preliminary until the PCTPA completes the follow- up “South Placer Regional Dial-A-Ride” study. It should be noted that the I-Ride program provides intercommunity demand response service in western Placer County, although the fares charged are significantly higher than the base fares charged in either Roseville or Rocklin.

Expand CTSA Dial-A-Ride Services to Meet Increasing Demand

As the population in western Placer County increases, the demand for DAR services is anticipated to increase. While it is not possible to pinpoint exactly what portions of the study area will ultimately require service, regional travel demand models and existing utilization patterns of the CTSA services indicate that approximately 8.0 daily vehicle service hours will need to be operated on weekdays beginning in Fiscal Year 2008-09, and that an additional 8.0 weekday vehicle service hours will need to be operated beginning in Fiscal Year 2011-12. As such, one expansion minibus will be needed in Fiscal Year 2008-09 and in Fiscal Year 2011-12. Specific operating plans for these expanded services (operating times and neighborhoods served) should be identified based upon ridership and operational patterns in place at the time of service expansion. The additional annual operating cost of operating each additional minibus is estimated to be on the order of $53,660 in Fiscal Year 2008-09 dollars, factored up 3.0 percent

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 12, Page 8 Short Range Transit Plan Update annually to account for inflation. Ridership on this service was estimated by applying the increased service hours to the existing productivity of CTSA services, factored down 25 percent to account for the anticipated longer trips that will occur to the dispersed nature of residential development in western Placer County.

POTENTIAL FUTURE SERVICE PLAN ELEMENTS

In addition to the Service Plan elements identified above for the seven-year Plan period, several additional service improvements have been found to be operationally feasible, but financially infeasible within existing funding sources. Implementation of these additional improvements will be dependent upon obtaining additional financial resources.

Potential Future Provision of One Additional Mid-Day Colfax/Alta Run

A number of respondents to recent public outreach efforts have indicated the need for more frequent service on the Colfax/Alta route. At present, this route operates Monday through Friday and provides two daily round-trips, departing Elders Station at 7:00 A.M. and 3:15 P.M. This service takes roughly two hours to complete a round trip. Under this Potential Future Service Plan element, one mid-day run could be added. If ultimately implemented, local staff would determine the exact departure time for this service improvement after polling riders and examining driver work schedules. By providing morning and afternoon opportunities for half- day trips, this improvement would increase riders’ access to jobs, shopping and recreation, at a relatively small increase in annual operating subsidy.

This Potential Future Service Plan element would require $46,360 in Fiscal Year 2005-06 dollars, and would increase annual ridership by 3,420 one-way passenger-trips once full ridership potential is realized after one full year of service. No additional vehicles would be required under this service modification, since the existing fleet could be used.

Potential Future Weekday Peak Period Service Frequency Improvements

The current fixed-route/commuter service plan calls for hourly headways, which is typical in smaller urban areas. In light of continued urbanization of the area and associated growth in transit needs, a reasonable service improvement would be service frequency improvements on the three main fixed-route/commuter services during the peak morning and afternoon periods.

Under the current service plan, six buses provide hourly service between roughly 5:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M. on the Highway 49, Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College, and Auburn / Light Rail routes. As discussed above, PCT will implement peak period 30-minute service on the Auburn / Light Rail route beginning in Fiscal Year 2005-06. Under this Potential Future Service Plan element, an additional four vehicles (not including spare buses) would be used to double the service frequency on the Highway 49 and Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College routes. This would increase annual operating costs by $596,900 (in Fiscal Year 2004-05 dollars). Ridership is estimated to increase annual ridership by 45,440 one-way passenger-trips. Additional capital costs would also be incurred, since four additional buses (not including spare, if necessary) would be required.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 12, Page 9

Potential Future Service Expansion to Unincorporated Placer County

According to SACOG, the population in unincorporated Placer County is expected to grow roughly 13.0 percent between 2005 and 2010. With the recent approval of many residential and commercial developments, it is prudent to analyze the impacts of providing fixed-route transit service to these unserved areas. Service alternative options for two unincorporated areas with potential substantial population growth are presented below.

Potential Future Service to Unincorporated Placer County West and Southwest of Roseville

The western portion of unincorporated Placer County, specifically the area to the west and southwest of Roseville, is developing rapidly. Considering both approved and proposed projects, total population of the area at buildout is estimated to be 46,656.

Under this Potential Future Service Plan element, a bus would serve the area west and southwest of Roseville, and then travel along Foothills Boulevard corridor to the Louis / Orlando Transfer Point. This route would operate on hourly headways, and would require one additional bus (not counting spare vehicles). It would operate approximately 3,584 annual vehicle service hours and 46,090 vehicle service miles, which equates to an annual operating cost of $186,740 (in Fiscal Year 2004-05 dollars). Based on the total buildout population for the Morgan Creek, Sun Valley Oaks, Doyle Ranch, Riolo Greens and Willow Park developments of 2,562 persons and a per- capita transit utilization rate developed in Chapter 9 above, it is estimated this new service would accommodate approximately 3,330 annual one-way passenger-trips at full build-out.

It should be noted that, if this alternative is pursued, an option that would bear consideration would be operation of this route by the Roseville Transit service contractor, rather than directly by PCT. This would greatly reduce the deadhead mileage associated with travel between the route and the PCT operations base in North Auburn, and would also increase the ability of operations staff to respond to operational problems. Under this option, PCT would contract with either the City of Roseville or the City’s service contractor directly to operate the service.

Potential Future Service to Bickford Ranch Specific Plan Area

The Bickford Ranch Specific Plan area is located approximately four miles northwest of I-80 and south of SR 193 between Lincoln and Newcastle. The Bickford Ranch Specific Plan has been approved, and consists of residential (1,950 dwelling units), service, employment, open space and public land uses. Population at buildout is estimated to be 5,129. The Bickford Ranch Specific Plan area will include a minimum of two bus stops with sheltered benches at proposed locations along Bickford Ranch Road near the Heritage Ridge residential development, and at the Village Center Park-n-Ride lot.

Under this Potential Future Service Plan element, a new fixed-route would begin at the Auburn Multimodal Station, travel west along I-80 and SR 193, entering Bickford Ranch at Clark Tunnel Road. The bus would travel through Bickford Ranch via Clark Tunnel Road, Bickford Ranch Road and Lower Ranch Road to Sierra College Boulevard, at which point the bus would travel north connecting to SR 193 and continue to Lincoln. The bus would provide hourly links to Lincoln Transit at the 3rd and F Street transfer point, making the return trip to Auburn along the same route and connecting passengers to Auburn Transit, other PCT services and Gold Country

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 12, Page 10 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Stage Route 5 at the Auburn Multimodal Station. The estimated annual operating costs associated with this service would total $204,430 (Fiscal Year 2004-05 dollars. Ridership for this Potential Future Service Plan element is estimated at 18,280 annual one-way passenger-trips.

Potential Future Service Between Auburn and Folsom

This Potential Future Service Plan element would add an additional $93,900 in annual operating costs, based on Fiscal Year 2004-05 cost estimates. As this service would primarily connect transfer centers and employment centers in Auburn and Folsom, it would be considered a commuter service. As such, complementary ADA paratransit service would not be required under this service alternative. Ridership is estimated to be on the order of 4,450 annual one-way passenger-trips. As Folsom is in Sacramento County, Placer County and the City of Folsom could consider entering into an agreement whereby each party contributes an appropriate amount of funds (possibly based wholly or in part on ridership from each jurisdiction) to cover operating subsidy.

Provide Future Granite Bay DAR Using Roseville DAR

PCT’s Granite Bay Dial-A-Ride service is currently contracted to CTSA. The service is available Monday through Friday in the mid-morning (9:00 A.M. to 11:00 A.M.) and the early afternoon (2:00 P.M. to 4:00 P.M.). Since most trips are provided between Granite Bay and destinations in Roseville, a Potential Future Service Plan element would be to contract with Roseville Transit in order to increase access to a greater number of destinations in Roseville and to better coordinate services between these two areas. Ridership generated by Granite Bay residents is estimated to total approximately 4,330 annual one-way passenger-trips. It should be noted that this figure includes a “credit” for the funds dedicated to the existing Granite Bay DAR service. The marginal operating cost of operating one additional vehicle would be approximately $109,320. City of Roseville residents would accrue some benefit from this higher level of service, since the vehicle would also be available for transporting Roseville residents. Assuming that Granite Bay residents would provide approximately 1.2 one-way passenger-trips per vehicle service hour and that Roseville residents would provide 3.1 one-way passenger-trips per vehicle service hour, Roseville would provide funding for 60 percent of the operating revenues required. This equates to approximately $65,590 for Roseville and $43,730 for Placer County.

CAPITAL PLAN

The following capital projects have been identified as being operationally and financially feasible over the seven-year Plan period.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 12, Page 11

Vehicle Fleet Replacement & Expansion

PCT currently has a fleet 19 buses, ranging in size from 28- to 35-passenger buses, although a peak of only 9 buses is required under the Service Plan (not including the commuter buses, which will be provided over the two years of the initial program by the operations contractor). Given the large service area of the PCT program and the potential for an inoperable bus to be stranded a relatively far distance from PCT’s maintenance shop in Auburn, a spare ratio of 40 percent is appropriate. A fleet of 13 fixed-route buses is therefore required during the Plan period, excluding the commuter buses. In addition, two older diesel buses could be kept in the fleet for contingency backup, particularly to address potential interruptions in CNG fueling capabilities. In order to achieve an appropriate spare ratio, PCT will not replace any current vehicles that were manufactured prior to 1994 as they are removed from service, and only one of the two 1994 Bluebird buses will be replaced in Fiscal Year 2007-08. In short, PCT will procure six replacement buses during the Plan period, using a combination of LTF (20 percent) and FTA Section 5307 (80 percent) funds. In Fiscal Year 2005-06, PCT will begin the disposition process for all of its buses that were manufactured prior to 1994 – each of which has surpassed its economically useful life as defined by the FTA.

In the long-term, PCT will continue to pursue heavy-duty (12 years/500,000 mile) CNG-powered buses for its fixed-route/commuter buses. However, PCT will begin pursuing low-floor fixed- route/commuter buses (dedicated commuter buses will be CNG-powered standard high-floor buses, which is discussed below). In comparison to the typical floor height of approximately 30 inches of a standard high-floor bus, low-floor buses require passengers to climb to only approximately 12 inches in height. In addition, low-floor buses typically use a simple fold-out ramp system to assist persons with transportation disabilities in boarding the bus – negating the need for a hydraulically-actuated lift system. The benefits of low-floor buses (which are rapidly becoming the standard for urban transit services around the nation) are that passengers typically find them more comfortable and boarding / deboarding times are reduced. The fact that simple fold-out wheelchair ramps can be used (rather than the hydraulic lifts required for traditional high-floor buses) also reduces maintenance costs while increasing reliability, and provides a further reduction in passenger boarding/deboarding time.

The primary disadvantage of low-floor buses is the slightly increased capital cost: the cost of a comparable CNG-powered bus is approximately $340,000 for a 12-year/500-000-mile 35-foot low-floor bus, compared with $330,000 for a high-floor CNG-powered bus (all estimates in Fiscal Year 2004-05 dollars). Also, the number of seats on a low-floor bus is approximately four fewer than for a standard high-floor bus of similar length. Finally, low-floor buses are typically 102 inches wide, in comparison to the 96-inch width of the existing PCT buses. Operating a wider bus could become a problem in areas with particularly narrow streets (though this is not currently the case for existing PCT routes). As this investment will help PCT fixed- route/commuter services to attain on-time performance standards in the face of increasing traffic delays on local streets, however, this additional investment is warranted.

In order to operate the Colfax-Sacramento commuter service using in-house employees in Fiscal Year 2006-07, PCT will procure three CNG-powered standard high-floor commuter buses (two peak buses, plus one spare). Buses appropriate for this service will feature high-back reclining passenger seats, overhead parcel trays, reading lights and a ride suitable for freeway driving.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 12, Page 12 Short Range Transit Plan Update

The per-unit cost is anticipated to be $355,000 in 2004 dollars. Since these vehicles require approximately 22 to 24 months for delivery, PCT officials will begin the procurement process in Fiscal Year 2004-05. These vehicles will be purchased using a combination of LTF (20 percent), Sacramento Emergency Clean Air and Transportation (40 percent) and FTA Section 5307 (40 percent) funding.

Implement Ongoing Bus Stop Improvement Program

The cost of modern glass and steel shelters averages approximately $8,000 including installation for most areas, and appropriate transit benches range from $350 for a recycled plastic bench to $550 for a vinyl-clad “stretched” steel bench not including installation. Maintenance and repair of vandalism to bus benches and shelters is a very minor cost as they are designed to be very resistant to vandalism. As a result, cleaning and maintenance costs are minor.

PCT will work closely with developers to plan passenger amenities and other transit-friendly features during the development phase of a project. In addition, staff should work with existing businesses and housing developments to provide passenger amenities in areas of existing or anticipated high transit passenger activity. A good “rule of thumb” is to plan benches at bus stops with five or more passenger boardings per day and shelters at bus stops with 15 or more passenger boardings per day. Consideration will also be given to bus stops that serve activity centers targeted toward the senior or disabled community. These persons often have difficulty standing for long periods of time, especially in harsh weather conditions. In total, PCT will plan for $10,000 annually (in Fiscal Year 2005-06 dollars) over the life of the Plan for bus stop improvements.

Construct Enhanced Bus Stop at Sierra College

As discussed in the Service Plan above, PCT and Sierra College will jointly develop an improved bus stop adjacent to the Rocklin campus. It is assumed that this project will be implemented in Fiscal Year 2005-06, and that it will cost on the order of $40,000 for site improvements and the installation of a suitable passenger shelter. The cost will be borne equally by PCT and Sierra College.

Seek to Improve 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 transit trip. A key element of a successful transit system, therefore, is a convenient system of sidewalks and bikeways serving the transit stops. PCT will work with the other branches of the Department of Public Works, as well as with the local jurisdictions, to review construction plans and scheduling priorities for pedestrian and bicycle improvements to best coordinate with transit passengers’ needs.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 12, Page 13

Install New Bus Wash System

PCT’s existing vehicle wash system is woefully undersized and also is in need of repair. As such, a Capital Plan element is to purchase a new gantry-type wash system at an estimated cost of $98,400. This project will be implemented in Fiscal Year 2006-07, although preliminary work will begin in Fiscal Year 2004-05. The Consultant Team cautions PCT officials to avoid partnering with another Public Works Department division (i.e., solid waste), as transit buses and trucks are typically not able to use the same system due to differing sizes and make-ups of the vehicles. This is particularly problematic for bobtail or tractor-trailer vehicles, as the drive- through systems do not do a good job washing the space between the cab and the cargo box. In addition, garbage trucks are notoriously dirty, which can cause the wash system to perform poorly when washing a PCT bus.

Implement On-Board Surveillance System

According to PCT staff, there is a need to occasionally address behavior problems on the fixed- route and commuter buses, particularly loud and abusive language by teen-age riders. One technology that has been implemented by transit and school bus agencies across the country is the use of on-board surveillance cameras. The leading technology uses a digital recording system that can simultaneously record several cameras at once. Based on the current fleet of fixed-route/commuter buses and costs incurred at similar transit agencies, it is estimated that this Capital Plan element will cost on the order of $34,500. This estimate is based on approximately $2,000 per bus (times 15 buses), plus approximately $2,500 for software and hardware needed at the operations base, factored by inflation for implementation in FY 2007/08. Recent advancements allow agencies to monitor driver actions, such as brake and throttle use, engine idling time and brake retarder use. Leading edge technologies allow agencies to monitor activity from a central base using radio frequency transmission, which is particularly useful for security purposes. PCT staff should investigate the utility of these added features during procurement by requesting that bidders provide optional features and costs in their bid submittal packages.

Enhanced Louis/Orlando Transfer Point Facility

The existing Louis/Orlando Transfer Point will be enhanced under a joint project among Sacramento Regional Transit, Roseville Transit and PCT. Preliminary cost estimates by Roseville Transit staff indicated the need for approximately $750,000, and will include improved access for transit vehicles, enhanced passenger amenities and on-site park-n-ride spaces. This analysis assumes that Sacramento RT will contribute 50 percent of the local share required for the project, and that the remaining local share will be split evenly between PCT and Roseville Transit. Alternatively, this program could be largely funded through the Congestion Management / Air Quality (CMAQ) program.

Conduct a Focused Transit Vehicle Maintenance Audit Study

PCT’s maintenance program is somewhat difficult to evaluate, since maintenance services are provided as part of the larger DPW vehicle maintenance program. As such, DPW should consider conducting a focused transit maintenance audit study to determine the optimal maintenance arrangement for its growing fleet needs. This maintenance audit could potentially

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 12, Page 14 Short Range Transit Plan Update be conducted in concert with other western Placer County transit providers (a similar audit is identified in the Roseville SRTP), and should provide benchmarks for determining when vehicles (by type) should be considered for refurbishment or replacement based on per unit costs. This study will cost on the order of $35,000.

POTENTIAL FUTURE CAPITAL PLAN ELEMENTS

The following capital projects are not included in the financially-constrained seven-year Plan, although each could be implemented if technological improvements can be identified and/or if additional capital funding becomes available.

Potential Fleet Expansion for 30-Minute Headway Service

As mentioned above under the Service Plan section above, a Potential Future Service Plan element is to provide peak period 30-minute service on the PCT’s Highway 49 and/or Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College services. However, these improvements are not currently financially feasible. If future financial conditions and/or demand increase substantially on these two services such that peak period service is warranted, the PCT fleet would need to be expanded. As the manufacturing lead time for buses often approaches two years, PCT staff should closely monitor conditions to determine if service should be expanded so that steps can be taken to begin the procurement process as early as possible.

Potential Future Larger Bike Racks for Auburn / Light Rail Buses

Although PCT’s current fleet of Orion VI buses will not accommodate currently available three- position bus bike racks, PCT staff will continue to monitor bike rack capacity on its services, as well as the development of potential new bus bike rack technologies that may allow an increase in bicycle capacity. PCT should consider working with local bicycle advocacy groups to develop solutions to bicycle capacity issues, if capacity constraints become a challenge in the future.

Potential Future Implementation of Advanced Public Transit System Technologies

A number of factors indicate that the innovations in transit technologies have a high potential for successful application at PCT:

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 12, Page 15

well grow in the future, as increasing congestion along the transit routes reduces schedule reliability.

With aging of the population, demand for demand response services is expected to grow substantially. AVL and DRD technologies (including the use of Mobile Data Terminals) would be useful in maximizing the efficiency of demand response services, particularly with regard to service in unincorporated Placer County.

At present, experience at other similar-sized transit services indicates that PCT’s current services are not quite at the “critical mass” at which APTS technologies can be cost-effective on a systemwide basis (fixed-route/commuter and demand response services combined). As the system grows in response to growth in the community, or as the cost and dependability of these technologies improves, PCT should carefully consider an investment in APTS systems as a means of improving service quality while also increasing service effectiveness. It should be noted that PCT’s contractor for demand response services (CTSA) currently uses DRD technologies, although it is still becoming trained in using this technology for planning purposes. It is hoped that, as CTSA officials become more proficient in its use, DRD technologies will assist PCT is determining trip patterns and load factors on its contracted services.

Potential Future Implementation of Traffic Signal Priority

Traffic signal preemption technology provides additional signal “green time” as buses approach traffic signals. Many transit systems operating along congested roadways have found this technology provides a substantial benefit, as buses can operate over shorter schedules and the amount of “make up time” provided in the schedules to accommodate traffic signal delays can be reduced. As a result, the capital and maintenance costs associated with the preemption system can, under specific conditions, be more than offset by operational cost savings.

Rather than always providing buses with a green signal, these systems simply extend the length of green time up to a predetermined limit as buses approach the signal. They are designed to not unduly impact overall traffic delays. This would be particularly useful near the various transit centers where multiple routes pass through signalized intersections. Given the current relatively low frequency of PCT buses, the costs associated with this strategy are not currently warranted for PCT along. However, this option should be considered in association with future service improvements, reductions in technology costs, or opportunity to share costs with other transit programs along joint routes.

Potential Future Electronic Fareboxes

PCT currently uses traditional “inspection plate” fareboxes that feature a display window for the driver to verify the cash fare paid. However, this technology is susceptible to fare fraud, as drivers cannot easily discern between valid coins and “plugs.” In addition, this technology requires a relatively high degree of staff time to count the cash fares and verify receipts against ridership records. Finally, as new transit data technologies emerge, it will be important to tie fare and passenger load information into the overall data management program. As such, it is reasonable to consider implementation of registering fareboxes.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 12, Page 16 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Two types of registering fareboxes currently exist: validating fareboxes, and non-registering fareboxes. Both types register (i.e., count) money and tokens inserted for payment of fares. A validating farebox, however, uses modern electronic methods to verify that the coins and bills inserted are valid. In addition, validating fareboxes seek to accurately determine the value and denomination of the coins and bills. A standard non-validating registering farebox uses simple mechanical methods to identify coins and bills, and makes no attempt to identify or reject invalid or counterfeit currency. For coins, only the diameter is measured to determine value. For bills, registering fareboxes measure the length and count every bill within 10 percent of the length of a dollar as a $1.00 bill. Bill denominations are not distinguished. In short, validating fareboxes provide increased security and accuracy over traditional electro-mechanical non-validating fareboxes.

While there is no question that fare collection in the future will make more use of non-cash payments, cash fares will still be an important fare media in the future. Unless a particular non- cash medium can be universally mandated, there is very little chance of a universally accepted (and universally held) non-cash future in fare collection. There will always be enough exception transactions (such as first time or infrequent riders, tourists, and those who have lost or forgotten their passes or tickets or smart cards) that the need for cash payment will never go away. A registering farebox should be considered a component which will co-exist with other fare collection components, data radios, passenger counters, GPS systems, headsigns, audible stop announcement systems, and possible electronic entertainment and advertising systems to be developed in the coming years.

Finally, as many different transit agencies currently operate in the Sacramento urbanized area, it might be a regional goal in the future to be able to accept and properly process stored value cards issued by other operators and properly account for their use. This would require a high level of interagency cooperation, but would allow the sharing of data between different agencies. Implementing registering fareboxes with an open communication technology that allows integration with other data processing technologies would be an important consideration. If local officials decide to implement this technology, a focused study should be conducted, either using in-house experts or the services of an outside consultant.

Potential Future Construction of a New Park-n-Ride Lot at Bell / I-80

The analysis of commuter transit demand provided in Chapter 4 underscores the growing long- term demand for commuter services. This growing demand will inevitably result in a substantial increase in park-and-ride parking demand. This growth can be expected for either an expansion in commuter bus service, or for vanpool services (though vanpool parking demand can be expected to be more dispersed than for bus service). As the growth of Placer County continues, the county may find that conditions are similar to those commonly found in California’s major urban areas: transit ridership is limited more by the availability of park-and-ride parking than by the capacity of the transit vehicles.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 12, Page 17

INSTITUTIONAL AND MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Institutional and Management Plan elements presented below, as well as the Service and Capital Plan elements discussed above, are predicated on Placer County increasing its staff size to meet the various needs of the PCT and Tahoe Area Regional Transit (TART) programs. If Placer County is unwilling to increase the staffing as recommended, many of the projects will likely need to be delayed and/or eliminated.

Add One Additional Placer County Transit Program Management Position

In comparison with other public transit programs of similar size, the management responsibilities of the PCT program are relatively challenging due to the season shifts in service requirements as well as the many jurisdictions and funding programs that must be coordinated. The various elements of this Short Range Transit Plan will also substantially add to the management resources needed for PCT (in addition to its sister agency, the TART program), as will the additional requirements associated with the “urbanized area” status of the transit program in the eyes of the FTA.

The day-to-day management staff currently available to PCT (above the operations level) is limited to a single position, shared between the PCT and TART programs. As this limitation in administrative staff would preclude or significantly delay the implementation of many of the elements of this Plan, and as other studies have shown a parallel need for additional management resources for the TART program, a new management position will be established (under the existing Transit Supervisor) that will be shared between the PCT and TART programs. This new position will assume a portion of responsibilities for project implementation, grants management, and inter-jurisdictional coordination. The annual salary for this position is assumed to be $60,000, factored up 40 percent to account for benefits. It is also assumed that the cost for this position will be shared 75 percent by PCT and 25 percent by TART.

Expand Flexibility in Providing Inter-Jurisdictional Dial-A-Ride Service

With growth, there is an increasing need for demand-response trips between the various jurisdictions in the South Placer region. To address this need in a manner that reduces both overall program costs and the need for passengers to transfer between services, Placer County, along with the City of Lincoln, the City of Roseville and the CTSA have developed the following cross-boundary dial-a-ride policy for the region:

1. Trips within a jurisdiction’s service area (e.g., Roseville to Roseville, Lincoln to Lincoln; County to County) may only be provided by the local transit entity. The exception to this would be provision of special services to ADA-eligible individuals that cannot be provided by the local entity (e.g., door-to-door service for frail elderly). In this case, PRIDE/CTSA may provide the trip.

2. Destinations into another entity’s service area should be limited to those that are not served by fixed route bus service. In Roseville, this would include everything north and east of Roseville Parkway and east of Washington Boulevard and continuing east along East

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 12, Page 18 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Roseville to Secret Ravine Parkway. In Rocklin, this would include the area along Five Star Boulevard. The exception would be that any destination could be served directly via dial-a- ride if the passenger is ADA-eligible.

3. These guidelines will not supercede specific Memoranda Of Understanding or agreements worked out among the public transit providers.

To implement this policy, Placer County will conduct a process to determine ADA eligibility for PCT and CTSA passengers in the South County area.

Participate in a South Placer Regional Dial-A-Ride Study

In the long term, there may be operational and financial benefits generated by increased coordination or consolidation of demand-response services in the South Placer region. Placer County, along with Lincoln, Roseville, Rocklin, Loomis, and PRIDE/CTSA will participate in a study conducted through the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency that evaluates long- range options for regional services.

Participate in a Long-Range Transit Study Addressing Regional Funding Responsibilities

While South Placer County has seen rapid growth in recent years, funding allocation procedures for regional services (particularly Placer County Transit) still reflect the conditions of the 1970’s when these procedures were established. As a result, current allocations and funding agreements (based largely on population within each jurisdiction) do not reflect the fact that a majority of both PCT services and PCT ridership takes place within the incorporated jurisdictions. In addition, new developments such as the Thunder Valley Casino require changes in services that in turn require modification of existing funding agreements. A long-range study will therefore be conducted under PCTPA direction to consider appropriate and equitable future service, institutional, and funding structures.

Coordinate with Major Employers

Many urbanized areas have seen success in increasing the use of alternatives to driving alone by encouraging large employers to develop incentive programs. Typically, employers that actively encourage alternatives to driving alone have a higher percent of employees participating in carpools and other alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle. Employers that offer transit subsidies and that actively market these subsidies generally can reach a rate of about four percent of employees using transit. Employer participation in such programs in California has declined since the requirement for employers to have trip-reduction programs was eliminated. However, many large employers have continued their efforts by coordinating rides, marketing the benefits of transit, and providing incentives to their employees to utilize the various alternatives.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 12, Page 19

PCT currently operates a trip reduction program comprising ten vanpools, with an average of ten participants each. The county pays for the gas and the lease of the vans. The vans are provided and insured by VPSI. Fares cover approximately 50 percent of the cost of the service. PCT will examine opportunities to expand the existing program by working with major employers to finance a larger portion of the cost of the service.

Enhance the PCT Marketing Program

Unlike many other public sector endeavors, marketing is an essential element of a cost-effective public transit service. Residents essentially must use many public services (such as public safety or sewer/water); outside of the truly transit-dependent, however, use of a transit service is a discretionary choice for most residents. This choice cannot be rationally made without a clear understanding of the mobility options provided by public transit services. A focused marketing effort using a modest budget (typically roughly 3 percent of total operating budget) is key in ensuring that the substantial public resources used by a transit service are well utilized. PCT will increase marketing in order to expand ridership through a cost-effective strategy using local media:

Improve Transit Services. A key precept of marketing is to provide a quality “product.” In the case of public transit, a reputation of providing quality service both encourages increased ridership and increases public support for transit; both tax-based funding and fare increases become more acceptable when service quality is high. A key “marketing” effort, therefore, is to begin other measures discussed in this document to improve service quality, including the need for enhanced passenger amenities and replacement of aging vehicles. Solving this problem – and subsequently changing the public perception of service quality through a marketing program – is undoubtedly the most important marketing strategy available to PCT.

Targeted Marketing. Due to the size of the PCT service area, the transit system operates a number of specific services within various communities. Experience in marketing for similar transit systems indicates that the most effective use of media is a moderate level of continuing advertisement exposure in local newspapers, providing information tailored for the paper’s readership. Western Placer County’s location as part of the greater Sacramento media market results in very limited radio and television marketing opportunities focused on the Placer County communities; the majority of local residents rely on Sacramento stations for radio and television. As a result, print media is a particularly important and cost-effective marketing opportunity for local transit services. An annual budget of $10,000 is assumed for this effort.

Inserts to County Mailings. As an element of the County, PCT potentially has the ability to include marketing materials in existing county mailings, such as voter registration packets.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 12, Page 20 Short Range Transit Plan Update

This strategy allows focused mailings to new residents, or to specific geographic areas, at relatively low cost. An annual budget of $2,000 is assumed for this effort.

Transit User Group Presentations. PCT staff should make personal presentations to local transit user groups, such as senior centers, disabled groups, schools, and civic groups in these areas. As part of these presentations, members of these groups should be educated with regard to how to use the service and the destinations available through the service, and they should be provided with a free round-trip ride coupon. A slide or video presentation can be an effective part of this program. Preferably, this program would include an actual ride on the service. In addition to increasing awareness of PCT’s services, this marketing element can effectively reduce or eliminate residents’ uncertainties regarding the use of public transit services. An annual total of $1,000 for supplies and materials is budgeted for this effort.

Expanded Pass Outlets. Monthly passes and multi-ride ticket books are currently available from PCT drivers, at the PCT office in Auburn, at Sierra College and at the Rainbow Market in Lincoln. PCT should consider expanding the number of outlets to ease the ability of users to purchase monthly passes. PCT could work with its contracted marketing firm to approach additional supermarkets in the PCT service area, large employers (Roseville Galleria, Hewlett-Packard and the medical facilities in Roseville) and other municipalities (cities of Auburn, Lincoln, Loomis, Rocklin and Roseville). As the use of monthly passes speeds the boarding process (in comparison to cash fares and the need to issue transfers), this effort could improve on-time performance of the system.

In total, $50,000 is assumed in the first year of this project, and $30,000 per year for years two through seven of the Plan period.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 12, Page 21

Adopt Transit Goals and Standards

Placer County Transit will adopt the appropriate goals and standards presented in Chapter 5 of this document. While these goals and standards will be used as a guide for service planning decisionmaking, other factors may also be considered. As mentioned in Chapter 5, over the first two years of a new service standards will be dropped by 40 percent, so long as favorable trends in performance are maintained.

Improve Service Monitoring

The need to minimize costs and maximize the efficiency of the service requires that sound business practices be followed in a transit service organization. Just as one would not run a retail store without knowing exactly what items are selling, it is imprudent to operate transit service without knowing which routes and which runs are attracting ridership. Similarly, the quality of the service provided must be closely monitored.

PCT staff does a good job of collecting and reporting service data in its monthly report. Staff members review these reports monthly, and present the information to respective boards and decision-makers. However, the following additional data categories would be helpful in assessing service quality and assist in future service planning:

Annual Passenger Survey – Onboard 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 (0-14, 15-18, 19-24, 25-44, 45-59, 60 and above),

Whether the passenger is disabled, and if so, the type of disability,

Residency status,

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), and

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 12, Page 22 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Suggestions for improvements in transit service.

Boarding and Alighting Counts – It is worthwhile, on at least an annual or biannual basis, to conduct a daylong count for boarding and alighting by stop for each of the services operated. This effort is in addition to the random sampling required as part of PCT’s National Transit Database reporting. Given the relatively high passenger loads during peak periods on the various services, it might be necessary to use office staff or temporary labor to ride each of the buses and conduct the survey. 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; and

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.

Implement an Education Program for Institutional Users of DAR Service

PCT, in conjunction with CTSA, will implement a program to educate institutional users (such as social service agencies and medical offices) with regard to the requirements and limitations of the demand response program contracted to CTSA. Specifically, institutions, passengers, and the program will benefit if greater knowledge is available regarding factors such as the following:

The availability of capacity on the service in various times of the day. The ability of institutions to take advantage of relatively “slack” periods of the day in scheduling their client’s trips can reduce frustration with the service, and can improve the overall productivity of service by providing more even demand for service.

Reservation procedures and passenger eligibility. Providing “official” information regarding service policies will minimize the confusion generated by “word-of-mouth” information.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 12, Page 23 information will be developed and distributed to major DAR trip destinations. PCT and/or CTSA staff will make presentations at social service agency staff meetings and to professional organizations.

FINANCIAL PLAN

Fare Program Revisions

Sooner or later, inflation requires all transit operators to consider an increase in the adult base one-way fare. This option is perceived as being equitable, in that the direct beneficiaries of transit service are required to pay. PCT plans to increase the fare structure in August 2004 to reflect an increase in the base adult fare from $0.75 to $1.00. Generally, all other fare categories (e.g., elderly, disabled, child, or student) are determined based on the adult base fare. Two additional fare revisions are assumed over the seven-year Plan period, as presented below.

Fare Program Revision in Fiscal Year 2008-09

Under this Financial Plan element, PCT will revise the current fare program in Fiscal Year 2008- 09 to account for inflation. In summary, PCT will increase the base adult fare from $1.00 to $1.10. This revision to the fare program will initially reduce fixed-route/commuter ridership due to the fare increases by approximately 10,870 (a 2.9 percent reduction) in the short-term. Experience with fare increases at other transit provides in the region indicates that most of these riders will be recaptured over time (assumed within two years) as the effects of inflation reduces the effective impact of the fare increase.

Factoring existing farebox revenues by the changes in fare levels and the net reduction in ridership suggests that the net impact on annual fare revenue would be an increase of approximately $23,260. The monthly passes will be priced to reflect a 30 percent discount (rounded to the nearest dollar), assuming 40 one-way rides per month. Daily passes will be priced based on 250 percent of the one-way cash fare. To simplify the fare program, PCT will cease use of the 40-ride ticket book.

Future Fare Program Revision in Fiscal Year 2011-12

To account for inflation, the fare program will be revised on an ongoing basis, with the tenet that the increases should be made in single-coin denominations. Assuming 3 percent annual inflation, the fare program will be revised in Fiscal Year 2011-12. The adult base fare will increase from $1.10 to $1.25, and the discounted fares will increase from $0.55 to $0.60. The monthly adult pass will sell for $35.00 and the monthly discounted pass will sell for $17.00.

Provide Fare-Free Fixed-Route Service for ADA-Eligible Passengers

Transit services are increasingly choosing to offer fare-free rides on fixed-route services to ADA-eligible passengers. For instance, this policy is in effect at the Utah Transit Authority in Salt Lake City. While this policy reduced fixed-route fare revenues to a small degree, it results in a substantially greater reduction in Dial-A-Ride operating subsidy as passengers shift from the more expensive Dial-A-Ride service to the less expensive fixed-route service. While

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 12, Page 24 Short Range Transit Plan Update conservatively not reflected in this financial plan, this element is expected to slightly reduce overall PCT operating costs by reducing the demand for complementary ADA paratransit services.

Use Development Fees to Expand Services to Unserved Areas

The use of development impact fees to fund the operating and capital costs associated with service to newly developing areas is an increasingly common practice. This financial strategy helps to ensure that existing transit services are not unduly impacted as a transit program expands to serve new areas. Placer County will pursue the generation of development impact fees to support the PCT program, both as part of the regional transportation impact fee program as well as part of project-by-project mitigation requirements. This will be particularly important for development along corridors not currently provided with transit service, such as the SR 193 corridor and in western Placer County for proposed projects such as Placer Vineyards, De LaSalle University, Curry Creek Community Plan Area and Placer Ranch.

Provide Transit Services Through Existing Local, State, and Federal Funding

Existing PCT funding programs will be relied upon over the seven-year Plan period to fund ongoing operating costs. The financial impacts on operating costs of the Service Plan are presented in Tables 64 through 68. Note that detailed financial analysis of the CTSA services funded by PCT are presented in the CTSA SRTP; the net impact of these CTSA modifications are incorporated into Table 68.

The following methodology was utilized in developing this Financial Plan:

First, forecasts of annual operating and administrative costs were developed, as presented in Table 64 for Fiscal Years 2005-06 through Fiscal Year 2011-12. “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 services. Next, operating and administrative cost estimates were identified for the Service Plan elements, based upon the analyses presented in previous sections of this document. These costs were factored by the inflation rate. Operating and administrative costs in the final year of the seven-year plan period will total approximately $4,436,000 with the service improvements, which is a 5 percent increase from the base case total of $4,237,300.

Note that this table also present cost estimates (both “base case” and with the plan elements) that exclude funds passed through the PCT budget to other transit programs (Gold Country STAGE, CTSA Foresthill service, and the Volunteer Center). These latter forecasts are appropriate for use in the calculation of farebox return ratio (as discussed below), as they do not reflect direct PCT operating costs.

Next, ridership for each Service Plan element was estimated. The estimates for Fiscal Years 2005-06 through Fiscal Year 2011-12 are presented in Table 65. The “base case” ridership reflects expected ridership assuming no changes in service or fares, and is based upon the forecasts presented in Chapter 9. The ridership impact of the Service Plan elements are then identified and summed. In total, implementing the Service Plan elements is forecast to increase systemwide ridership from a Fiscal Year 2011-12 base case figure of 298,500 one-

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 12, Page 25

$0.0 Total ($30.1) $279.0 $532.3 $482.6 $249.9 $552.5 ($443.4) $1,714.6 $1,454.5 ($1,330.3) $27,191.5 $26,639.0 7-Year Plan FY11-12 Projected FY10-11 Projected FY09-10 Projected FY08-09 Projected FY07-08 Projected FY06-07 Projected $0.0 $0.0 ($83.5) ($86.0) ($88.6) ($91.3) ($94.0) $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 ($4.0) ($4.1) ($4.2) ($4.3) ($4.4) ($4.5) ($4.6) FY05-06 Projected -- -- $223.8 $230.5 $237.4 $244.5 $251.8 $259.4 $267.2 -- $36.4 $37.5 $38.6 $39.8 $41.0 $42.2 $43.5 -- $63.0 $64.9 $66.8 $68.8 $70.9 $73.0 $75.2 -- $50.0 $30.9 $31.8 $32.8 $33.8 $34.8 $35.8 -- -- $69.5 $71.6 $73.7 $75.9 $78.2 $80.5 $82.9 -- $70.0 $72.1 $74.3 $76.5 $78.8 $81.1 $83.6 $86.1 ($42.1) ($173.6) ($178.8) ($184.2) ($189.7) ($195.4) ($201.3) ($207.3) FY04-05 $3,445.3 $3,548.7 $3,655.1 $3,764.8 $3,877.7 $3,994.0 $4,113.9 $4,237.3 $3,375.3 $3,476.6 $3,580.9 $3,688.3 $3,798.9 $3,912.9 $4,030.3 $4,151.2 $3,403.2$3,333.2 $3,813.8 $3,741.7 $3,907.6 $3,833.3 $3,941.1 $3,864.6 $4,059.5 $3,980.7 $4,181.3 $4,100.2 $4,306.7 $4,223.1 $4,436.0 $4,349.9 $28,646.0 $28,093.5 Projected

(2) Subtotal Plan Elements ($42.1) $265.1 $252.5 $176.4 $181.8 $187.3 $192.8 $198.7 (1) Modify Service to Sierra College Campus Implement Saturday Service Frequency Improvements Modification of Lincoln / Rocklin Sierra College Route Elimination of PCT Provision Alta Service In-House Operation of Commuter Service Between Colfax and Downtown Sacramento (August 1, 2006) New Administrative Management Position Provide Peak Period Weekday 30-Minute Auburn / Light Rail Service Expand Lincoln/Rocklin/Sierra College Schedule to Match Auburn Light Rail Schedule Total Base Case PCT Operating Cost Base Case PCT Contributions to Other Programs Base Case PCT System Costs Enhance Marketing Program TABLE 64: Placer County Transit Plan - Estimated Operating Cost Service Plan Elements Base Case Operating Cost All Figures in Thousands Project Description Net Operating Cost Excluding PCT Contributions to Other Programs Net Operating Cost Note 1: This analysis assumes an annual inflation rate of 3 percent. Note 2: The annual salary for this new position is assumed at $60,000, plus 40 percent benefits. This to be split 75 percent PCT and 25 TART. Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 12, Page 26 Short Range Transit Plan Update

0.0 25.7 37.8 Total (15.9) (14.2) 175.0 276.5 159.5 519.7 (124.7) 1,923.7 7-Year Plan FY11-12 Projected FY10-11 Projected FY09-10 Projected FY08-09 Projected FY07-08 Projected FY06-07 Projected 2.4 3.3 3.80.0 3.90.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 (10.6) 4.2 0.0 (5.3) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (14.2) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 4.8 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.1 6.3 25.9 35.5 40.6 41.8 43.0 44.2 45.5 16.4 22.5 25.7 26.4 27.2 28.0 28.8 50.9 71.1 80.7 72.4 80.2 88.0 76.4 FY05-06 Projected ------(4.0) (16.4) (16.8) (17.3) (17.8) (18.3) (18.8) (19.3) 13.4 19.1 21.8 22.4 23.0 23.7 24.4 25.1 248.6 303.1 330.5 347.5 346.8 362.4 378.2 374.9 2,443.4 239.2 252.2 259.4 266.8 274.4 282.2 290.2 298.5 FY04-05 Projected (3) (4) (2) ) Subtotal Plan Elements 9.4 ust 1, 2006 g Au ( e (1) ht Rail Schedul g Modification of Lincoln / Rocklin Sierra College Route Modify Service to Sierra College Campus Fare Program Revision in Fiscal Year 2011-12 Implement Saturday Service Frequency Improvements In-House Operation of Commuter Service Between Colfax and Downtown Sacramento Provide Peak Period Weekday 30-Minute Auburn / Light Rail Service Expand Lincoln/Rocklin/Sierra College Schedule to Match Auburn Li Elimination of PCT Provision Alta Service Fare Program Revision in Fiscal Year 2008-09 TABLE 65: Placer County Transit Plan - Estimated Ridership Base Case Ridership Net Ridership All Figures in Thousands Project Description Service Plan Elements Note 1: This analysis assumes that ridership will increase at the same rate as anticipated population growth in western Placer County between 2005 and 2010 (2.9 percent; see Table 7 for details). Note 2: Ridership data presented for the Colfax commuter service is entire period, even though PCT will begin in-house operations in Fiscal Year 2006-07. Note 3: The fare revision in FY08-09 assumes that the base adult will increase from $1.00 to $1.10, and senior/disabled fare will increase from $0.50 to $0.55. Note 4: The fare revision in FY11-12 assumes that the base adult will increase from $1.10 to $1.25, and senior/disabled fare will increase from $0.55 to $0.60. Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 12, Page 27

way passenger-trips per year to a Fiscal Year 2011-12 total with the service changes of 374,900 one-way passenger-trips, an increase of 26 percent.

It should be noted that this ridership growth figure reflects the shift in Alta contract service from PCT to CTSA. Overall, of course, this ridership is not lost, but rather simply shifted from one organization to the other. Excluding the Alta service, the plan will increase ridership on PCT services in FY 2011-12 by 95,700 from a base-case figure of 279,200 – a 34 percent increase. As noted above, it typically takes one full year for a service revision to reach full ridership potential. As such, it is assumed that ridership on all Service Plan elements will reach 75 percent of full ridership potential in the first year and 100 percent in the second year.

Based upon the ridership forecasts, the passenger fare revenues were next identified, and are presented for Fiscal Years 2005-06 through 2011-12 in Table 66. An average fare of $4.00 per passenger-trip was assumed for the Colfax – Sacramento commute service, which is conservatively low compared with the actual figure for the first few months of service. The implementation of the various Plan elements is expected to increase passenger farebox revenues from a Fiscal Year 2011-12 base case figure of $479,200 to a Fiscal Year 2011-12 total of $588,300 with the Plan elements – an increase of 23 percent. Note that the elimination of the existing Alta contract revenues as PCT “fare revenues” substantially reduces the net increase in this figure. Without this impact, the plan would increase PCT fare revenues by $296,000 – an increase of 62 percent.

The next element necessary in the development of the Financial Plan is estimation of the capital cost for vehicles and other Capital Plan elements, as presented in Table 67. Expected replacement vehicle needs over the seven-year period consist of six replacement buses and three expansion commuter buses. In addition, PCT will implement ongoing bus stop improvements throughout the Plan period, construct an enhanced bus stop at Sierra College in Rocklin, install a new bus wash system, and implement an on-board surveillance system. Finally, PCT will participate in the enhanced Louis/Orlando Transfer Point improvement project. Capital costs over the seven-year Plan period will total approximately $3,709,400.

The results of Tables 64 through 67 were used to develop the Financial Plan, as presented for each of the seven years of the Short Range Transit Plan period in Table 68. Operating revenue forecasts are subtracted from operating cost forecasts to yield an operating subsidy. In addition, capital costs and revenues are identified.

The TDA projections used in this analysis are presented in Table 69. The Plan assumes that Placer County’s TDA funding will increase annually based on recent trends, anticipated 3 percent annual inflation and projected population growth in unincorporated Placer County. The overall PCT use of TDA funds is depicted in Table 70. As presented, a total of $37,201,500 in TDA funds is anticipated to be available to Placer County over the seven-year Plan period; a total of $16,016,200 will be used by PCT. The remaining $21,185,300 will be available for non-transit uses. A review of Table 70 indicates that this Plan will require the proportion of total county TDA funds necessary for transit uses to increase from a currently level of 32 percent to roughly percent in the years without vehicle replacement costs, and up to 50 percent in FY 2011-12 when vehicle replacement is required. Nonetheless, the existing

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 12, Page 28 Short Range Transit Plan Update

-- $0.0 Total $41.3 $60.7 $95.6 $35.1 $443.9 $638.0 $280.9 $395.9 $3,088.2 ($1,199.6) 7-Year Plan FY11-12 Projected FY10-11 Projected FY09-10 Projected FY08-09 Projected FY07-08 Projected FY06-07 Projected FY05-06 Projected $0.0 $41.6 $57.0 $65.2 $67.1 $69.0 $71.0 $73.0 $0.0 $3.9 $5.3$0.0 $6.1$0.0 $0.0 $6.3 $0.0 $0.0 $6.4 $0.0 $0.0 $6.6 $0.0 $22.7 $6.7 $0.0 $23.7 $0.0 $24.7 $0.0 $24.5 $35.1 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $60.0 $76.4 $87.2 $89.6 $92.0 $94.8 $97.6 $100.4 12.2% 10.7% 11.7% 12.2% 12.8% 12.8% 12.8% 13.5% ($38.0) ($156.6) ($161.3) ($166.1) ($171.1) ($176.2) ($181.5) ($186.9) $384.0 $404.9 $416.4 $428.3 $440.5 $453.0 $465.9 $479.2 $406.0 $402.1 $448.5 $473.2 $509.1 $523.9 $539.0 $588.3 $3,484.1 FY04-05 Projected (2) (3) (1) Subtotal Plan Elements $22.0 ($2.8) $32.0 $44.9 $68.6 $70.9 $73.1 $109.1 e ht Rail Schedul g Provide Peak Period Weekday 30-Minute Auburn / Light Rail Service Expand Lincoln/Rocklin/Sierra College Schedule to Match Auburn Li Elimination of PCT Provision Alta Service Fare Program Revision in Fiscal Year 2008-09 Modification of Lincoln / Rocklin Sierra College Route Modify Service to Sierra College Campus Implement Saturday Service Frequency Improvements $0.0In-House Operation of Commuter Service Between Colfax and Downtown Sacramento (August 1, 2006) $0.0 $26.3Fare Program Revision in Fiscal Year 2011-12 $36.1 $5.6 $41.3 $7.7 $42.4 $8.8 $43.7 $9.2 $44.9 $9.5 $46.2 $9.8 $10.1 TABLE 66: Placer County Transit Plan - Estimated Farebox Revenues Base Case Service Plan Elements All Figures in Thousands Project Description Farebox Recovery Ratio (Excluding PCT Contributions to Other Programs) Net Farebox Revenues Note 1: Farebox data presented for the Colfax commuter service is entire period, even though PCT will begin in-house operations in Fiscal Year 2006-07. Note 2: The fare revision in FY08-09 assumes that the base adult will increase from $1.00 to $1.10, and senior/disabled fare will increase from $0.50 to $0.55. Note 3: The fare revision in FY11-12 assumes that the base adult will increase from $1.10 to $1.25, and senior/disabled fare will increase from $0.55 to $0.60. Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 12, Page 29

6 3 $0.0 $0.0 Total $37.5 $76.3 $35.0 $40.0 $98.4 $34.5 $20.0 $727.2 $426.0 $2,319.7 $1,065.0 $2,536.2 $3,709.4 $3,709.4 7-Year Plan FY11-12 Projected FY10-11 Projected FY09-10 Projected FY08-09 Projected FY07-08 Projected FY06-07 Projected 0020004 0300000 project; Sacramento RT will contribute 50 percent and Roseville Transit the remaining 25 percent. The amount FY05-06 Projected $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $37.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $10.0 $10.3 $10.6 $10.9 $11.2 $11.5 $11.8 $0.0 $0.0 $98.4 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $34.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $237.7 $157.6 $9.7 $2.2 $2.3 $317.7 $0.0 $65.0 $513.0 $630.6 $38.7 $9.0 $9.2 $1,270.7 $0.0 $35.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $40.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $20.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $125.0 $0.0 $426.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $465.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $340.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $465.0 $85.0 $1,176.7 $788.2 $48.4 $11.2 $11.5 $1,588.4 FY04-05 Projected Balance $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 Total Cost $0.0Total Cost $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $743.1 $1,065.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,576.6 $0.0 $0.0 Enhanced Orlando/Whyte Transfer Point (1) (2) Number of Buses 0 Number of Buses 0 (3) Total Capital Revenues $465.0 $85.0 $1,176.7 $788.2 $48.4 $11.2 $11.5 $1,588.4 LTF Capital Revenues FTA Section 5307 Capital Funds FTA Section 5309 Capital Funds SECAT Funds Sierra College Contribution for Bus Stop Project TABLE 67: Placer County Transit Capital Plan Expenditures CNG-Powered Low-Floor Buses: For Replacement All Figures in Thousands Project Description CNG Fueling Upgrades - Phase II Total Capital Plan Elements CNG-Powered Commuter Buses: For Expansion On-Going Bus Stop Improvements Conduct Focused Transit Maintenance Audit Study Enhanced Bus Stop at Sierra College Install a New Bus Wash System Implement On-Board Surveillance System Enhanced Orlando/Whyte Transfer Point Revenues Note 1: This analysis assumes that a CNG-powered low-floor replacement bus will be purchased for $340,000 in 2004 dollars (3 percent annual inflation assumed). presented in this table represents PCT's total contribution to the $750,000 project. This program could also potentially be funded largley through the CMAQ program. Note 2: This analysis assumes that three CNG-powered commuter buses will be purchased at a per unit cost of $355,000 in 2004 dollars (3 percent annual inflation assumed). Note 3: PCT will contribute 25 percent of the local share for Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 12, Page 30 Short Range Transit Plan Update

) -- -- $0.0 Total $62.5 $54.6 $61.9 $88.6 $242.1 $206.1 $900.0 $212.5 $575.7 $682.2 $337.8 $124.0 $655.1 $549.8 $876.0 ( ($247.7) $1,149.3 $1,543.1 $2,561.9 $3,275.4 $2,526.6 $1,428.5 $1,454.5 $27,191.5 $12,984.5 $28,734.6 $28,734.6 $27,191.5 7-Year Plan FY11-12 Projected FY10-11 Projected FY09-10 Projected FY08-09 Projected All Figures in Thousands FY07-08 Projected FY06-07 Projected $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 ($0.0) $0.0 ($0.0) $0.0 $7.2 $7.4 $7.6 $7.8 $8.0 $8.2 $8.4 $71.7 $73.9 $76.1 $78.4 $80.8 $83.2 $85.7 FY05-06 Projected ---- ($32.3) ($33.3) ($34.3) ($35.3) ($36.4) ($37.5) ($38.6) ---- $251.9 $213.0 $202.8 $195.0 $198.7 $203.5 $278.2 -- -- $284.5 $220.2 $198.1 $167.5 $170.2 $174.1 $214.0 -- ($79.2) ($55.2) ($44.7) ($23.4) ($23.9) ($24.5) $8.7 -- $265.1 $252.5 $176.4 $181.8 $187.3 $192.8 $198.7 -- ($13.2) ($39.4) $26.4 $13.2 $11.4 $10.7 $79.5 $7.9 $16.2 $16.7 $17.2 $17.7 $18.2 $18.7 $19.3 $86.4 $89.0 $91.7 $94.5 $97.3 $100.2 $103.2 $106.3 $42.8 $44.1 $45.4 $46.8 $48.2 $49.6 $51.1 $52.6 $75.0 $150.0 $154.5 $159.1 $163.9 $168.8 $173.9 $179.1 $26.2 $26.9 $27.7 $28.5 $29.4 $30.3 $31.2 $32.1 $20.0 $13.8 $7.6 $7.8$72.9 $8.0 $75.1 $8.2 $77.4 $8.4 $79.7 $8.7 $82.1 $84.6 $87.1 $89.7 $83.0 $85.5 $88.1 $90.7 $93.4 $96.2 $99.1 $102.1 $324.7 $334.4 $344.4 $354.7 $365.3 $376.3 $387.6 $399.2 $450.0$212.5 $450.0 $212.5 $450.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $282.8 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $415.0 $427.5 $440.3 $453.5 $467.1 $481.1 $495.5 $510.4 $111.1 $114.4 $117.8 $121.3 $124.9 $128.6 $132.5 $136.5 $114.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 FY04-05 $3,728.1 $3,548.7 $3,655.1 $3,764.8 $3,877.7 $3,994.0 $4,113.9 $4,237.3 $1,349.0 $1,176.4 $1,442.8 $1,950.7 $2,010.2 $2,071.2 $2,134.2 $2,198.9 $3,445.3 $3,548.7 $3,655.1 $3,764.8 $3,877.7 $3,994.0 $4,113.9 $4,237.3 $1,450.0 $1,000.0 $550.0 $566.5 $583.5 $601.0 $619.0 $637.6 Projected Balance Balance Balance $282.8 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 (4)

) (1) Total Operating Costs $3,445.3 $3,800.6 $3,868.2 $3,967.6 $4,072.7 $4,192.7 $4,317.3 $4,515.5 Total Operating Revenues $3,728.1 $3,800.6 $3,868.2 $3,967.6 $4,072.7 $4,192.7 $4,317.3 $4,515.5 (2) (3) Casino y (4,5) (4) Colfax-Sacramento Commuter Service Revenues For Base Case Services Revenues -- Impact of Plan ( g g eratin CMAQ Costs Applied to TART Funding from Local Jurisdictions Subtotal -- Base Case Rocklin Lincoln Loomis Rocklin LTF Operating Revenues Interest Revenue FTA Section 5307 (Preventive Maintenance & ADA) Colfax (Local Route) Cities (Commuter Route) Funding from Local Jurisdictions Lincoln Loomis Deferred PCT Revenue Thunder Valle Subtotal FTA Section 5311 Operating (Colfax & Loomis Services)STA Operating Revenues $7.9 $8.1 $8.3 $8.5 $8.8 $9.1 $9.4 $9.7 Passenger Fares for Existing Services (From Table 66)Alta Regional Center $330.0 $324.7 $342.4 $351.8 $361.4 $371.6 $382.0 $392.7 Vanpool Fares LTF Operating Revenues Passenger Fares For New Services (from Table 66) p TABLE 68: Placer County Transit Financial Operating Plan Project Description RESERVE ACCOUNT BALANCE Operatin O Operating Plan Elements (From Table 64) OPERATING PLAN Base Case Costs Change in Funding Provided to CTSA Over Base Note 1: "Base Case" includes provision of Colfax-Sacramento Commuter Service, and shift in Alta contract service to CTSA. Note 2: Deferred revenue is a one-time allocation from PCT's internal "Designated for Contingency" reserve account. Note 3: Could potentially also be used to fund Orlando/Whyte transfer facility improvements. Note 4: Reflects shift in existing Rocklin/Loomis DAR costs to serve Rocklin only. Note 5: The City of Rocklin's TDA contribution is increased in Fiscal Year 2005-06 to account for the additional evening Lincoln / Rocklin Sierra College run that will be operated. Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 12, Page 31

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Note 2: Source -- PCTPA $0 $0 $0 $0 1,8206,770 1,870 7,070 1,920 7,380 1,970 7,710 2,020 8,050 2,065 8,400 2,120 8,530 13,000 13,210 13,420 13,640 13,860 14,090 14,290 26,06044,100 28,150 45,350 30,410 46,630 32,850 47,950 35,490 49,310 38,350 50,700 39,870 51,970 $7,210 $7,550 $7,890 $8,260 $8,630 $9,010 $9,280 $1,940 $2,000 $2,050 $2,110 $2,170 $2,220 $2,310 100,890 103,390 105,950 108,580 111,270 114,040 116,170 100,000 101,770 103,570 105,400 107,260 109,160 109,180 292,640 300,810 309,280 318,100 327,260 336,805 342,130 $46,970 $48,400 $49,850 $51,340 $52,860 $54,390 $56,530 $36,670 $37,770 $38,900 $40,070 $41,270 $42,510 $43,780 $18,330 $18,880 $19,450 $20,030 $20,640 $21,250 $21,890 $27,760 $30,040 $32,510 $35,170 $38,040 $41,140 $43,370 $86,200 $88,950 $91,560 $94,140 $96,720 $99,020$13,850 $103,150 $14,100 $14,350 $14,600 $14,860 $15,120 $15,540 ) ) 1,779 6,227 90,167 12,634 23,047 48,919 96,922 $6,934 $1,926 FY04-05 FY05-06 FY06-07 FY07-08 FY08-09 FY09-10 FY10-11 FY11-12 $20,000 279,695 $49,065 $40,000 $16,651 $23,503 $87,308 $14,305 Budgeted $721,327 $716,870 $701,090 $710,120 $719,070 $727,910 $736,640 $745,240 $356,005 $366,690 $377,690 $389,020 $400,690 $412,710 $425,090 $437,840 $356,005 $366,690 $377,690 $389,020 $400,690 $412,710 $425,090 $437,840 $112,557 $106,510 $108,610 $110,730 $112,850 $114,980 $117,110 $118,770 $750,721 $759,880 $784,470 $808,580 $833,430 $859,050 $885,450 $912,660 $306,594 $320,650 $336,300 $351,930 $368,460 $385,430 $402,800 $415,040 $620,487 $615,720 $628,360 $639,950 $651,850 $663,610 $675,650$111,063 $695,300 $107,450 $110,340 $113,290 $116,260 $119,260 $122,340 $126,370 $319,354 $311,690 $321,040 $330,670 $340,590 $350,800 $361,330 $372,170 $610,548 $577,512 $596,197 $614,521 $633,408 $652,874 $672,939 $693,619 $1,121,483$2,380,647 $1,234,280$4,741,939 $1,339,020 $2,088,710 $4,736,290 $1,450,150 $2,157,180 $4,840,930 $1,569,880 $2,223,630 $4,938,900 $1,699,240 $2,291,500 $5,036,990 $1,838,970 $2,360,930 $5,135,540 $1,939,940 $2,431,180 $5,234,460 $2,528,680 $5,312,320 $4,394,688 $4,778,438 $4,917,993 $5,052,389 $5,188,962 $5,327,516 $5,468,451 $5,652,431 $1,658,599 $595,303 $0 $1,393,371 $633,240 $653,730 $673,820 $694,530 $715,870 $737,870 $760,550 $15,470,513$16,407,785 $16,547,790 $17,044,220 $15,830,920 $17,555,550 $16,343,130 $18,082,220 $16,845,430 $18,624,690 $17,363,150 $19,183,430 $17,896,780 $19,758,930 $18,446,790 $19,013,690 $14,263,693 $14,437,800 $14,904,930 $15,363,030 $15,835,190 $16,321,860 $16,823,470 $17,340,480 ) (SRTP Fiscal Years Allocated by Population (SRTP Fiscal Years Allocated by Population (2) (2) (1) Roseville Rocklin Less: PCTPA Discretionary Loomis Less: CTSA Allocation Lincoln Less: CTSA Allocation Less: LTF to TRPA Less: Administrative/Planning/Ped/Bike Loomis Roseville Lincoln Rocklin Colfax Plus: Carryover From Previous Year (Assume $0 for SRTP Years Colfax Auburn Placer County Auburn Placer County Less: STA to TRPA Total STA Available to Jurisdictions LTF Available to Jurisdictions Planning Allocation to PCTPA (4%) LTF Available to PCTPA Total Placer Co LTF Apportionment STA Available to PCTPA Placer County Fund Balance From Previous Year Total Placer Co STA Apportionment Auburn Colfax Lincoln Loomis Rocklin Roseville TABLE 69: TDA Funding Projections Population Projections Local Transportation Fund LTF Allocations to Jurisdictions State Transit Assistance STA Allocations to Jurisdictions Note 1: Source -- SACOG for 2005, 2010, and 2020 estimates, LSC interpolated years.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 12, Page 32 Short Range Transit Plan Update

-- Total 7-Year Plan

FY11-12 Projected

FY10-11 Projected

FY09-10 Projected

FY08-09 Projected

FY07-08

Projected

FY06-07 Projected

32% 40% 47% 44% 44% 44% 50% $0.0 $237.7 $157.6 $9.7 $2.2 $2.3 $317.7 $727.2

FY05-06 Projected

32% $0.0 $111.1 $114.4 $117.8 $121.3 $124.9 $128.6 $132.5 $136.5 $876.0 FY04-05 $1,349.0 $1,461.0 $1,663.0 $2,148.7 $2,177.7 $2,241.4 $2,308.2 $2,413.0 $14,413.0 $3,045.7 $3,310.5 $3,009.8 $2,738.0 $2,992.9 $3,074.6 $3,147.7 $2,911.6 $21,185.3 Projected

Subtotal $4,505.8 $4,885.9 $5,028.3 $5,165.7 $5,305.2 $5,446.8Subtotal $5,590.8 $1,460.1 $5,778.8 $1,575.4 $37,201.5 $2,018.5 $2,427.6 $2,312.3 $2,372.2 $2,443.0 $2,867.2 $16,016.2

Local Transportation Fund (LTF) $4,394.7State Transit Assistance (STA) $111.1 $4,778.4 $4,918.0 $5,052.4 $107.5LTF Operating $5,189.0 $110.3 $5,327.5LTF Capital $5,468.5 $113.3 $5,652.4 $116.3 $36,386.2 $119.3 $122.3 $126.4 $815.3 STA Operating TABLE 70: PCT Use of TDA Funds All Figures in Thousands Project Description Placer County TDA Revenues PCT TDA Expenditures Proportion of Total TDA Revenues Required for Transit TDA Funds Remaining for Non- Transit Uses

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 12, Page 33 and planned services will meet the reasonable to meet requirements of the TDA, and total TDA funding available for non-transit uses will remain above $2,700,000 in each year of the plan.

The following financial issues should be noted:

The TDA funds provided to CTSA through Placer County Transit (as opposed to the direct allocation) are assumed to increase from existing levels ($158,400) by the rate of inflation, plus the operating costs associated with expansion of Dial-A-Ride services, minus the increase in farebox revenues on Dial-A-Ride services associated with the recent and planned fare increases and the expansion and modification of Dial-A-Ride services. As fare increases occur in the early years of the plan and the significant increase in costs do not occur until later years, this results in a reduction from existing funding levels for the first two years of the plan period and an increase in the “out years.” As inflation of the existing CTSA funding level is included in the “base case costs,” Table 68 presents the net impact over the inflated base case costs.

Annual interest revenues are based on a percentage of the available reserve account.

Approximately $1.9 million is currently available in PCT’s reserve account, which is higher than local official’s desire. As such, PCT will “spend down” this account to approximately $550,000 by allocating $450,000 annually to operating revenue needs in Fiscal Years 2004-05 through 2006-07. This annual reserve account will be increased annually by 3 percent to account for inflation, using TDA revenues.

FTA Section 5311 funds will be used for local Colfax service, which is operated almost entirely outside of the Sacramento Urbanized Area boundary. A portion of the City of Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds will be used to fund the new Colfax- Sacramento commuter service in Fiscal Years 2004-05 and 2005-06. TDA funding sources will provide funding for the remaining six years of the Plan period.

The TDA contributions from the jurisdictions served by PCT will increase over the Plan period to account for the increased service levels in each jurisdiction.

With the conversion of the Rocklin/Loomis Dial-A-Ride to serve Rocklin only, the existing Loomis funding responsibilities are assumed to be shifted to Rocklin.

All other operating funding sources are assumed to increase annually by 3 percent to account for annual inflation.

FTA Section 5307 funds will provide 80 percent of the funding for the capital project costs identified in Table 67, with the exception of the commuter bus purchase project in Fiscal Year 2006-07 (the non-local portion of this project will be equally split between SECAT and FTA Section 5307 funds). FTA Section 5307 funds will total $2,536,200 over the seven-year Plan period for capital purposes, and $3,275,400 for preventive maintenance and ADA services. PCT is encouraged to submit a single grant application in Fiscal Year 2004-05 to fund the ongoing bus stop improvement project over the Plan period.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 12, Page 34 Short Range Transit Plan Update

It is assumed that Sierra College will provide 50 percent of the project costs to construct the improved bus stop at their Rocklin campus.

As mentioned above, SECAT funding will provide 50 percent of the non-local revenues needed for the commuter bus procurement project in Fiscal Year 2006-07.

PCT will maintain the TDA-required 10 percent farebox recovery ratio throughout the Plan period with implementation of the various Plan elements discussed above. This ratio will drop to a low of 10.7 percent in FY 2005-06 (due in large part to the loss of contract revenues associated with CTSA service) before rising to 13.5 percent by the end of the plan period.

The Service and Capital Plan elements are summarized in Figure 54 below. Again, it should be stressed that the timely implementation of these Plan elements is dependent upon hiring an additional management staff person to carry out these projects. Failure to add this position will delay implementation of several of these projects.

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

This schedule provides a timeline of the actions necessary to successfully implement the improvements identified in this plan. It should be noted that, due to the relatively long build process, it is assumed that PCT will have already begun the procurement process for buses that will be delivered in the first two years of service in Fiscal Years 2003-04 and 2004-05. Implementation schedule for the modifications in CTSA services funded through PCT are presented in the CTSA SRTP.

Fiscal Year 2005-06

Implement the following Service Plan elements:

Provide Peak Period Weekday 30-Minute Auburn / Light Rail Service Expand PCT Fixed-Route/Commuter Schedules to Match Auburn / Light Rail Schedule Modification of Lincoln / Rocklin / Sierra College Route Modify Service to Sierra College Campus Implement Saturday Service Frequency Improvements Cease contracted Alta Regional Center service (around April 1, 2005)

Implement the following Capital Plan elements:

Implement the ongoing bus stop improvement program. Construct the new enhanced bus stop at Sierra College. Install a new bus wash system.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 12, Page 35

FIGURE 54

PCT SHORT RANGE TRANSIT SERVICE AND CAPITAL PLAN

Alta OTHER CAPITAL PLAN ELEMENTS VEHICLE FLEET REPLACEMENT: -REDUCE SPARE RATIO TO 40 PERCENT -SIX REPLACEMENT LOW-FLOOR CNG BUSES -THREE EXPANSION CNG COMMUTER BUSES IMPLEMENT BUS STOP IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IMPROVE BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES INSTALL NEW BUS WAS SYSTEM City of IMPLEMENT ON-BOARD SURVELLIANCE SYSTEM Colfax

IN-HOUSE PROVISION OF COLFAX-SACRAMENTO P SERVICE

OPERATE HWY 49 Foresthill ROUTE HOURLY ON

SATURDAY P

P P PROVIDE MID-DAY FORESTHILL RUNS, City of Auburn AND MONITOR SERVICE

P P P

MODIFY LINCOLN/ PROVIDE DAR SERVICE P ROCKLIN/SIERRA COLLEGE IN LOOMIS USING

ROUTE, RUN TILL 9 PM P TAYLOR RD SHUTTLE ONLY AND OPERATE HOURLY P ON SATURDAY P

LEGEND P P P MODIFY SERVICE TO P P SIERRA COLLEGE INCORPORATED CITIES DIAL-A-RIDE SERVICE AREAS P ENHANCE BUS STOP CAPITOL CORRIDOR ROUTE P P AT SIERRA COLLEGE PLACER COUNTY TRANSIT AUBURN TO ALTA IMPROVE LOUIS/ PROVIDE 30 MINUTE HIGHWAY 49 ROUTE ORLANDO TRANSFER AUBURN - LIGHT RAIL EXPRESS ROUTE PEAK PERIOD AUBURN TAYLOR ROAD SHUTTLE CENTER LRT SERVICE AND LINCOLN TO GALLERIA TO SIERRA COLLEGE COLFAX TO SACRAMENTO COMMUTER ROUTE OPERATE HOURLY FORESTHILL ROUTE 7AM-7PMONSATURDAY P PARK-N-RIDE

Wwwplacertransit TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC.

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 12, Page 36 Short Range Transit Plan Update

Implement the following Institutional and Management Plan elements:

Recruit and hire the new administrative management position. Implement the enhanced marketing program. Assist in the provision of increased marketing for the Foresthill service operated through CTSA. Implement the improved service monitoring program. Implement the education program for institutional Dial-A-Ride users.

Implement the following Financial Plan elements:

Implement the increased fare program. Provide fare-free fixed-route service to ADA-eligible passengers.

Monitor system performance to ensure system goals are being achieved.

Fiscal Year 2006-07

Assume in-house operation of the Colfax-Sacramento commuter service, using new PCT buses.

Take delivery of three CNG-powered commuter buses.

Continue implementing the bus stop improvement program.

Work with PCTPA to update the PCT Short Range Transit Plan for Fiscal Years 2007-08 through 2011-12.

Monitor system performance to ensure system goals are being achieved.

Fiscal Year 2007-08

Take delivery of two CNG-powered low-floor buses.

Continue implementing the bus stop improvement program.

Implement the on-board surveillance system.

Monitor system performance to ensure system goals are being achieved.

Fiscal Years 2008-09 Through 2011-12

Take delivery of two CNG-powered low-floor buses. (FY 2011-12)

Continue implementing the bus stop improvement program.

Monitor system performance to ensure system goals are being achieved.

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency LSC, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Update Chapter 12, Page 37

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

LSC, Inc. Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Chapter 12, Page 38 Short Range Transit Plan Update

APPENDIX A

TABLE A-1: 2002 Home-Based Work Person-Trips in the Sacramento Region

To District Subtotal: Placer From District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 County 10 11 12 13 Total

1 Downtown Sacramento 9,979 8,412 1,071 414 68 357 188 7 5 200 1,838 3 13 180 22,535

Other Central 2 63,616 189,314 23,518 13,194 1,623 12,111 4,958 293 316 5,567 20,353 78 469 5,691 335,534 Sacramento

3 Rancho Cordova 6,659 17,295 36,713 3,461 1,565 1,060 1,422 67 91 1,580 1,846 3 486 399 71,067

Carmichael, Fair Oaks, 4 18,154 50,407 25,927 72,752 6,692 4,477 33,185 1,655 2,001 36,841 7,219 149 1,598 1,355 225,571 Citrus Hts, Orangevale

5 Folsom 1,350 3,398 7,058 3,278 12,434 329 3,001 207 352 3,560 434 5 1,865 166 33,877

Other Sacramento 6 14,539 41,405 10,655 3,722 959 25,944 1,796 123 105 2,024 5,933 51 426 13,990 119,648 County

7 South Placer 4,536 10,972 5,902 11,945 2,711 1,288 59,612 3,157 3,271 66,040 2,046 126 705 927 107,198

8 West Placer 835 2,018 1,068 1,968 577 234 9,762 6,226 2,607 18,595 394 62 191 1,266 27,208

9 Auburn/East Placer 443 1,209 677 1,227 428 89 4,747 1,178 24,120 30,045 191 10 398 3,855 38,572

Subtotal: Placer County 5,814 14,199 7,647 15,140 3,716 1,611 74,121 10,561 29,998 114,680 2,631 198 1,294 6,048 172,978

10 Yolo County 12,861 13,190 2,126 1,173 131 2,711 528 46 25 599 58,556 28 31 15,281 106,687

11 Sutter County 276 390 46 88 6 117 192 129 17 338 163 44 1 335 1,804

12 El Dorado County 1,731 4,307 9,256 2,502 5,901 423 2,850 303 2,040 5,193 536 2 41,875 3,528 75,254

13 External to Sac Region 6,384 12,743 2,736 1,348 387 7,015 2,790 1,484 5,689 9,963 21,326 286 1,401 0 63,589

Total 141,363 355,060 126,753 117,072 33,482 56,155 125,031 14,875 40,639 180,545 120,835 847 49,459 46,973 1,228,544

Source: SACOG SACMET Model of Placer, Sacramento, El Dorado and Yolo Counties. TABLE A-2: 2005 Home-Based Work Person-Trips in the Sacramento Region

To District Subtotal: Placer From District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 County 10 11 12 13 Total

1 Downtown Sacramento 10,891 8,620 1,092 443 71 443 200 9 9 218 2,031 3 16 186 24,014

Other Central 2 69,744 188,862 22,816 13,130 1,703 14,832 5,105 328 311 5,744 21,287 87 504 5,481 344,190 Sacramento

3 Rancho Cordova 7,342 17,897 37,639 3,586 1,720 1,233 1,456 76 78 1,610 1,995 5 547 404 73,978

Carmichael, Fair Oaks, 4 18,154 48,922 27,067 73,368 7,716 4,966 34,570 1,796 1,887 38,253 7,357 152 1,713 1,346 229,014 Citrus Hts, Orangevale

5 Folsom 1,568 3,714 8,248 3,407 14,747 387 2,917 204 287 3,408 481 2 2,299 175 38,436

Other Sacramento 6 17,341 49,554 11,995 4,329 1,166 35,429 2,082 153 101 2,336 7,442 65 480 15,431 145,568 County

7 Roseville/South Placer 4,519 11,642 6,121 12,867 2,839 1,516 70,692 4,130 3,569 78,391 2,188 142 685 1,028 121,938

8 Lincoln/West Placer 849 2,334 1,119 2,313 611 306 13,115 8,604 3,245 24,964 457 84 186 1,452 34,675

9 Auburn/East Placer 401 1,190 576 1,219 377 95 5,280 1,399 25,838 32,517 198 11 352 4,132 41,068

Subtotal: Placer County 5,769 15,166 7,816 16,399 3,827 1,917 89,087 14,133 32,652 135,872 2,843 237 1,223 6,612 197,681

10 Yolo County 14,270 13,882 2,155 1,170 158 3,095 553 33 31 617 64,000 21 35 16,136 115,539

11 Sutter County 244 407 45 92 5 143 218 151 22 391 173 54 1 324 1,879

12 El Dorado County 1,637 4,023 9,091 2,425 6,588 501 2,615 296 1,947 4,858 517 2 47,245 3,528 80,415

13 External to Sac Region 6,761 13,158 2,644 1,377 399 8,294 3,343 1,663 6,022 11,028 22,685 301 1,243 0 67,890

Total 153,721 364,205 130,608 119,726 38,100 71,240 142,146 18,842 43,347 204,335 130,811 929 55,306 49,623 1,318,604

Source: SACOG SACMET Model of Placer, Sacramento, El Dorado and Yolo Counties.

APPENDIX B

TABLE B-1: Placer County Estimated 2000 Demographic Data by Census Tract

Elderly Persons (Aged 60 and Mobility Limited Persons Below Poverty Zero-Vehicle Population Households Over) Persons (1) Status (2) Households Census Square Per Sq. Percent Percent Percent Percent of Tract Description Miles Total Number Mile Total Number Total Number of Area Total Number of Area Total Number of Area Total Number Area 202.1 Auburn/ Foresthill 38.49 4,142 107.6 1,553 840 20.3% 82 2.0% 148 3.6% 18 0.4% 202.2 Foresthill Area 5.11 366 71.6 151 67 18.3% 0 0.0% 35 9.6% 8 2.2% 202.3 Foresthill Area 227.94 562 2.5 248 130 23.1% 16 2.8% 28 5.0% 9 1.6% 202.4 Foresthill Area 1.35 723 535.6 266 97 13.4% 32 4.4% 103 14.2% 15 2.1% 202.5 Northeast Placer County 287.74 1 0.003 1 1 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 203.1 Central Auburn 0.99 3,167 3,199.0 1,511 784 24.8% 74 2.3% 268 8.5% 288 9.1% 203.2 Central Auburn 1.14 1,544 1,354.4 698 314 20.3% 45 2.9% 152 9.8% 85 5.5% 204.1 South Auburn 3.07 3,450 1,123.8 1,369 786 22.8% 80 2.3% 126 3.7% 38 1.1% 204.2 South Auburn 0.83 1,588 1,913.3 728 260 16.4% 35 2.2% 118 7.4% 41 2.6% 204.3 South Auburn 0.17 619 3,641.2 291 91 14.7% 17 2.7% 59 9.5% 24 3.9% 205.1 Auburn/ Newcastle 4.89 1,044 213.5 380 178 17.0% 26 2.5% 6 0.6% 7 0.7% 205.2 Auburn/ Newcastle 5.20 1,926 370.4 791 590 30.6% 30 1.6% 57 3.0% 45 2.3% 205.3 Auburn/ Newcastle 1.00 530 530.0 200 80 15.1% 0 0.0% 26 4.9% 5 0.9% 205.4 Auburn/ Newcastle 3.86 805 208.5 325 163 20.2% 26 3.2% 39 4.8% 14 1.7% 205.5 Auburn/ Newcastle 5.76 1,629 282.8 592 368 22.6% 15 0.9% 15 0.9% 16 1.0% 206.011 East Granite Bay 0.98 1,435 1,464.3 532 244 17.0% 0 0.0% 45 3.1% 9 0.6% 206.012 East Granite Bay 8.24 4,719 572.7 1,678 830 17.6% 38 0.8% 116 2.5% 17 0.4% 206.013 East Granite Bay 0.47 271 576.6 105 81 29.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 206.021 Area SE of Loomis 4.48 1,373 306.5 500 260 18.9% 28 2.0% 66 4.8% 5 0.4% 206.022 Area SE of Loomis 2.05 817 398.5 281 161 19.7% 0 0.0% 6 0.7% 9 1.1% 206.023 Area SE of Loomis 1.72 832 483.7 329 243 29.2% 15 1.8% 88 10.6% 0 0.0% 206.024 Area SE of Loomis 5.84 1,908 326.7 708 318 16.7% 23 1.2% 131 6.9% 23 1.2% 206.025 Area SE of Loomis 4.63 1,217 262.9 422 234 19.2% 15 1.2% 65 5.3% 0 0.0% 206.041 Granite Bay 1.26 963 764.3 340 150 15.6% 28 2.9% 9 0.9% 17 1.8% 206.042 Granite Bay 1.13 2,342 2,072.6 751 254 10.8% 7 0.3% 62 2.6% 6 0.3% 206.043 Granite Bay 1.26 800 634.9 269 135 16.9% 7 0.9% 5 0.6% 0 0.0% 206.044 Granite Bay 0.82 1,390 1,695.1 499 229 16.5% 24 1.7% 65 4.7% 21 1.5% 206.051 Granite Bay 2.30 3,017 1,311.7 915 212 7.0% 0 0.0% 31 1.0% 9 0.3% 206.052 Granite Bay 1.68 2,295 1,366.1 800 332 14.5% 22 1.0% 98 4.3% 20 0.9% 206.061 Granite Bay 1.57 4,233 2,696.2 1,211 211 5.0% 38 0.9% 42 1.0% 0 0.0% 207.021 E. Central Roseville 0.33 2,120 6,424.2 855 709 33.4% 27 1.3% 157 7.4% 227 10.7% 207.022 E. Central Roseville 0.27 1,354 5,014.8 548 229 16.9% 25 1.8% 25 1.8% 0 0.0% 207.023 E. Central Roseville 0.65 3,715 5,715.4 1,437 1073 28.9% 107 2.9% 308 8.3% 179 4.8% 207.031 South Roseville 0.55 3,273 5,950.9 1,144 431 13.2% 47 1.4% 111 3.4% 32 1.0% 207.032 South Roseville 0.55 1,850 3,363.6 684 328 17.7% 9 0.5% 66 3.6% 21 1.1% 207.033 South Roseville 0.38 2,055 5,407.9 686 241 11.7% 18 0.9% 12 0.6% 17 0.8% 207.041 Roseville 3.69 1,863 504.9 874 121 6.5% 26 1.4% 132 7.1% 9 0.5% 207.051 Roseville 1.21 4,413 3,647.1 1,699 354 8.0% 90 2.0% 310 7.0% 38 0.9% 207.052 Roseville 0.45 1,816 4,035.6 696 344 18.9% 34 1.9% 20 1.1% 42 2.3% 207.053 Roseville 0.83 2,702 3,255.4 1,059 729 27.0% 18 0.7% 65 2.4% 145 5.4% 208.1 W. Central Roseville 0.49 2,084 4,253.1 1,059 470 22.6% 74 3.6% 186 8.9% 213 10.2% 208.2 W. Central Roseville 0.45 1,929 4,286.7 807 553 28.7% 32 1.7% 71 3.7% 34 1.8% 208.3 W. Central Roseville 0.76 3,383 4,451.3 1,384 339 10.0% 58 1.7% 144 4.3% 13 0.4% 209.011 West Roseville 0.13 203 1,561.5 92 33 16.3% 6 3.0% 41 20.2% 25 12.3% 209.012 West Roseville 0.54 2,831 5,242.6 978 325 11.5% 171 6.0% 494 17.4% 97 3.4% 209.021 West Roseville 5.19 1,038 200.0 406 228 22.0% 101 9.7% 70 6.7% 25 2.4% 209.022 West Roseville 3.07 868 282.7 297 134 15.4% 9 1.0% 40 4.6% 17 2.0% 209.023 West Roseville 0.41 3,081 7,514.6 1,050 278 9.0% 133 4.3% 139 4.5% 8 0.3% 209.024 West Roseville 0.54 2,347 4,346.3 823 305 13.0% 135 5.8% 392 16.7% 119 5.1% 210.031 Rosevillle 0.27 1,343 4,974.1 576 207 15.4% 73 5.4% 124 9.2% 29 2.2% 210.032 Rosevillle 0.21 569 2,709.5 242 94 16.5% 43 7.6% 41 7.2% 8 1.4% 210.033 Rosevillle 0.54 512 948.1 207 146 28.5% 8 1.6% 0 0.0% 20 3.9% 210.034 Rosevillle 1.82 2,544 1,397.8 887 255 10.0% 88 3.5% 34 1.3% 12 0.5% 210.041 Rosevillle 3.53 3,692 1,045.9 1,213 250 6.8% 59 1.6% 75 2.0% 0 0.0% 210.051 Rosevillle 4.88 5,518 1,130.7 1,732 337 6.1% 136 2.5% 0 0.0% 24 0.4% 210.061 Rosevillle 0.75 1,926 2,568.0 1,095 1728 89.7% 28 1.5% 26 1.3% 26 1.3% 210.062 Rosevillle 1.12 3,400 3,035.7 1,998 3007 88.4% 66 1.9% 55 1.6% 97 2.9% 210.071 Rosevillle 0.43 4,786 11,130.2 1,531 227 4.7% 132 2.8% 111 2.3% 61 1.3% 210.072 Rosevillle 2.35 6,349 2,701.7 2,312 638 10.0% 136 2.1% 91 1.4% 123 1.9% 210.081 Rosevillle 0.42 1,958 4,661.9 789 258 13.2% 100 5.1% 116 5.9% 71 3.6% 210.082 Rosevillle 0.81 5,271 6,507.4 2,045 711 13.5% 135 2.6% 183 3.5% 88 1.7% 211.031 Rocklin 1.09 1,309 1,200.9 460 141 10.8% 32 2.4% 235 18.0% 39 3.0% 211.032 Rocklin 0.11 536 4,872.7 199 77 14.4% 0 0.0% 60 11.2% 15 2.8% 211.033 Rocklin 0.56 1,101 1,966.1 446 131 11.9% 32 2.9% 122 11.1% 68 6.2% 211.034 Rocklin 0.18 744 4,133.3 274 110 14.8% 0 0.0% 119 16.0% 0 0.0% 211.041 Rocklin 5.78 8,143 1,408.8 2,773 1021 12.5% 87 1.1% 117 1.4% 26 0.3% 211.051 Rocklin 1.06 5,504 5,192.5 2,021 379 6.9% 160 2.9% 328 6.0% 23 0.4% 211.061 Rocklin 0.74 2,349 3,174.3 910 495 21.1% 7 0.3% 47 2.0% 0 0.0% 211.071 Rocklin 0.74 3,398 4,591.9 1,369 362 10.7% 125 3.7% 154 4.5% 35 1.0% 211.072 Rocklin 3.00 2,992 997.3 1,056 266 8.9% 34 1.1% 86 2.9% 96 3.2% 211.081 Rocklin 0.27 578 2,140.7 255 109 18.9% 0 0.0% 61 10.6% 20 3.5% 211.082 Rocklin 0.41 2,301 5,612.2 1,003 515 22.4% 54 2.3% 124 5.4% 111 4.8% 211.091 Rocklin 2.12 2,949 1,391.0 1,065 409 13.9% 36 1.2% 20 0.7% 0 0.0% 212.1 Loomis/Penryn 9.51 1,540 161.9 552 289 18.8% 28 1.8% 95 6.2% 24 1.6% 212.2 Loomis/Penryn 3.86 1,735 449.5 628 337 19.4% 41 2.4% 88 5.1% 9 0.5% 212.3 Loomis/Penryn 1.39 375 269.8 139 82 21.9% 7 1.9% 0 0.0% 5 1.3% 212.4 Loomis/Penryn 2.61 2,333 893.9 903 428 18.3% 14 0.6% 92 3.9% 18 0.8% 212.5 Loomis/Penryn 0.89 1,898 2,132.6 606 202 10.6% 28 1.5% 16 0.8% 4 0.2% 213.011 West Placer County 45.98 1,699 37.0 594 206 12.1% 49 2.9% 74 4.4% 21 1.2% 213.012 West Placer County 67.40 1,048 15.5 381 187 17.8% 67 6.4% 81 7.7% 18 1.7% 213.031 Northwest Placer County 16.79 5,479 326.3 1,842 728 13.3% 32 0.6% 25 0.5% 11 0.2% 213.041 Northwest Placer County 38.50 1,750 45.5 610 295 16.9% 66 3.8% 180 10.3% 34 1.9% 213.042 Northwest Placer County 19.36 715 36.9 233 103 14.4% 15 2.1% 27 3.8% 8 1.1% 213.043 Northwest Placer County 8.77 1,295 147.7 476 282 21.8% 69 5.3% 72 5.6% 23 1.8% 213.044 Northwest Placer County 10.87 967 89.0 317 178 18.4% 11 1.1% 18 1.9% 43 4.4% 214.011 Lincoln 0.62 1,130 1,822.6 401 199 17.6% 96 8.5% 124 11.0% 37 3.3% 214.012 Lincoln 0.27 944 3,496.3 309 110 11.7% 37 3.9% 51 5.4% 26 2.8% 214.013 Lincoln 0.19 421 2,215.8 146 64 15.2% 11 2.6% 8 1.9% 31 7.4% 214.021 Lincoln 0.26 986 3,792.3 347 166 16.8% 17 1.7% 75 7.6% 30 3.0% 214.022 Lincoln 0.24 881 3,670.8 299 165 18.7% 17 1.9% 81 9.2% 39 4.4% 214.023 Lincoln 0.42 4,461 10,621.4 1,428 386 8.7% 329 7.4% 885 19.8% 116 2.6% 214.024 West Placer County 1.68 632 376.2 223 85 13.4% 16 2.5% 0 0.0% 28 4.4% 215.011 Edgewood 4.33 779 179.9 283 172 22.1% 28 3.6% 30 3.9% 0 0.0% 215.012 Edgewood 2.56 2,374 927.3 1,006 566 23.8% 95 4.0% 164 6.9% 138 5.8% 215.013 Edgewood 3.84 1,207 314.3 455 227 18.8% 69 5.7% 46 3.8% 6 0.5% 215.021 Bowman Area 0.99 2,643 2,669.7 1,000 523 19.8% 39 1.5% 112 4.2% 30 1.1% 215.022 Bowman Area 1.83 989 540.4 405 190 19.2% 10 1.0% 80 8.1% 26 2.6% 216.1 W. of Northern SR 49 25.41 2,401 94.5 931 584 24.3% 52 2.2% 172 7.2% 18 0.7% 216.2 W. of Northern SR 49 11.68 1,237 105.9 470 265 21.4% 16 1.3% 21 1.7% 8 0.6% 216.3 W. of Northern SR 49 1.13 2,598 2,299.1 1,000 899 34.6% 57 2.2% 182 7.0% 138 5.3% 216.4 W. of Northern SR 49 0.05 1,111 22,220.0 416 67 6.0% 48 4.3% 264 23.8% 56 5.0% 218.011 Clipper Gap 4.75 1,159 244.0 388 164 14.2% 39 3.4% 17 1.5% 0 0.0% 218.012 Clipper Gap 3.85 1,525 396.1 554 294 19.3% 11 0.7% 14 0.9% 18 1.2% 218.013 Clipper Gap 1.53 700 457.5 252 162 23.1% 17 2.4% 59 8.4% 52 7.4% 218.014 Clipper Gap 2.82 648 229.8 230 150 23.1% 5 0.8% 45 6.9% 0 0.0% 218.021 Bell Road Area 2.92 1,495 512.0 434 441 29.5% 70 4.7% 134 9.0% 35 2.3% 218.022 Bell Road Area 0.84 2,433 2,896.4 1,072 911 37.4% 34 1.4% 50 2.1% 114 4.7% 218.023 Bell Road Area 0.80 1,007 1,258.8 347 203 20.2% 33 3.3% 95 9.4% 9 0.9% 218.024 Bell Road Area 3.57 1,064 298.0 424 173 16.3% 0 0.0% 97 9.1% 0 0.0% 219.011 Applegate Area 3.69 1,341 363.4 468 192 14.3% 13 1.0% 117 8.7% 0 0.0% 219.012 Applegate Area 12.54 1,733 138.2 699 363 20.9% 43 2.5% 64 3.7% 26 1.5% 219.021 Meadow Vista Area 2.96 1,886 637.2 695 433 23.0% 66 3.5% 15 0.8% 7 0.4% 219.022 Meadow Vista Area 6.19 2,277 367.9 825 480 21.1% 29 1.3% 115 5.1% 18 0.8% 219.023 Meadow Vista Area 0.37 142 383.8 44 5 3.5% 3 2.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 220.011 Alta/Baxter 12.67 1,111 87.7 437 190 17.1% 24 2.2% 99 8.9% 24 2.2% 220.012 Alta/Baxter 23.37 959 41.0 360 137 14.3% 45 4.7% 109 11.4% 8 0.8% 220.013 Northeast Placer County 144.49 728 5.0 280 133 18.3% 38 5.2% 9 1.2% 6 0.8% 220.014 Northeast Placer County 19.05 44 2.3 21 10 22.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 220.015 Northeast Placer County 73.18 1,355 18.5 506 140 10.3% 0 0.0% 147 10.8% 7 0.5% 220.016 Northeast Placer County 24.58 1,304 53.1 563 139 10.7% 14 1.1% 101 7.7% 6 0.5% 220.021 Colfax Area 2.09 911 435.9 377 222 24.4% 47 5.2% 54 5.9% 12 1.3% 220.022 Colfax Area 7.86 2,363 300.6 897 400 16.9% 29 1.2% 134 5.7% 25 1.1% 220.023 Colfax Area 15.26 2,023 132.6 797 351 17.4% 23 1.1% 124 6.1% 49 2.4% Placer County Totals 1330.46 236,241 177.6 88,550 41,418 17.5% 5,361 2.3% 11,783 5.0% 4,363 1.8% State of California Totals 160,042.00 33,871,648.00 212.0 12,214,549.00 4,742,499.00 14.0% 1,718,472.00 5.1% 4,565,256.00 13.5% 1,091,214.00 8.9%

Note 1: Mobility-limited figures include persons aged 16 to 64. Note 2: Poverty status figures include persons aged 0 to 64.

Source: 2000 Census. TABLE B-2: Placer County Estimated 2005 Demographic Data by Census Tract

Elderly Persons (Aged 60 and Mobility Limited Persons Below Poverty Zero-Vehicle Population (3) Households Over) Persons (1) Status (2) Households Census Square Per Sq. Percent Percent Percent Percent of Tract Description Miles Total Number Mile Total Number Total Number of Area Total Number of Area Total Number of Area Total Number Area 202.1 Auburn/ Foresthill 38.49 4,270 110.9 1,643 866 20.3% 85 2.0% 153 3.6% 19 0.4% 202.2 Foresthill Area 5.11 377 73.8 160 69 18.3% 0 0.0% 36 9.5% 8 2.1% 202.3 Foresthill Area 227.94 579 2.5 262 134 23.1% 16 2.8% 29 5.0% 9 1.6% 202.4 Foresthill Area 1.35 745 551.9 281 100 13.4% 33 4.4% 106 14.2% 15 2.0% 202.5 Northeast Placer County 287.74 1 0.003 1 1 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 203.1 Central Auburn 0.99 3,324 3,357.6 1,594 823 24.8% 78 2.3% 281 8.5% 302 9.1% 203.2 Central Auburn 1.14 1,621 1,421.9 736 330 20.4% 47 2.9% 160 9.9% 89 5.5% 204.1 South Auburn 3.07 3,733 1,216.0 1,483 850 22.8% 87 2.3% 136 3.6% 41 1.1% 204.2 South Auburn 0.83 1,718 2,069.9 789 281 16.4% 38 2.2% 128 7.5% 44 2.6% 204.3 South Auburn 0.17 670 3,941.2 315 98 14.6% 18 2.7% 64 9.6% 26 3.9% 205.1 Auburn/ Newcastle 4.89 1,136 232.3 427 194 17.1% 28 2.5% 7 0.6% 8 0.7% 205.2 Auburn/ Newcastle 5.20 2,095 402.9 889 642 30.6% 33 1.6% 62 3.0% 49 2.3% 205.3 Auburn/ Newcastle 1.00 577 577.0 225 87 15.1% 0 0.0% 28 4.9% 5 0.9% 205.4 Auburn/ Newcastle 3.86 876 226.9 365 177 20.2% 28 3.2% 42 4.8% 15 1.7% 205.5 Auburn/ Newcastle 5.76 1,772 307.6 666 400 22.6% 16 0.9% 16 0.9% 17 1.0% 206.011 East Granite Bay 0.98 1,573 1,605.1 590 267 17.0% 0 0.0% 49 3.1% 10 0.6% 206.012 East Granite Bay 8.24 5,174 627.9 1861 910 17.6% 42 0.8% 127 2.5% 19 0.4% 206.013 East Granite Bay 0.47 297 631.9 116 89 30.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 206.021 Area SE of Loomis 4.48 1,505 335.9 555 285 18.9% 31 2.1% 72 4.8% 5 0.3% 206.022 Area SE of Loomis 2.05 896 437.1 312 177 19.8% 0 0.0% 7 0.8% 10 1.1% 206.023 Area SE of Loomis 1.72 912 530.2 365 266 29.2% 16 1.8% 96 10.5% 0 0.0% 206.024 Area SE of Loomis 5.84 2,092 358.2 785 349 16.7% 25 1.2% 144 6.9% 25 1.2% 206.025 Area SE of Loomis 4.63 1,334 288.1 468 256 19.2% 16 1.2% 71 5.3% 0 0.0% 206.041 Granite Bay 1.26 1,056 838.1 377 164 15.5% 31 2.9% 10 0.9% 19 1.8% 206.042 Granite Bay 1.13 2,568 2,272.6 833 279 10.9% 8 0.3% 68 2.6% 7 0.3% 206.043 Granite Bay 1.26 877 696.0 298 148 16.9% 8 0.9% 5 0.6% 0 0.0% 206.044 Granite Bay 0.82 1,524 1,858.5 554 251 16.5% 26 1.7% 71 4.7% 23 1.5% 206.051 Granite Bay 2.30 3,308 1,438.3 1015 232 7.0% 0 0.0% 34 1.0% 10 0.3% 206.052 Granite Bay 1.68 2,516 1,497.6 887 364 14.5% 24 1.0% 107 4.3% 22 0.9% 206.061 Granite Bay 1.57 4,641 2,956.1 1343 231 5.0% 42 0.9% 46 1.0% 0 0.0% 207.021 E. Central Roseville 0.33 2,650 8,030.3 1116 886 33.4% 34 1.3% 196 7.4% 284 10.7% 207.022 E. Central Roseville 0.27 1,693 6,270.4 715 286 16.9% 31 1.8% 31 1.8% 0 0.0% 207.023 E. Central Roseville 0.65 4,644 7,144.6 1876 1341 28.9% 134 2.9% 385 8.3% 224 4.8% 207.031 South Roseville 0.55 4,091 7,438.2 1493 539 13.2% 59 1.4% 139 3.4% 40 1.0% 207.032 South Roseville 0.55 2,313 4,205.5 893 410 17.7% 11 0.5% 83 3.6% 26 1.1% 207.033 South Roseville 0.38 2,569 6,760.5 896 301 11.7% 23 0.9% 15 0.6% 21 0.8% 207.041 Roseville 3.69 2,329 631.2 1141 151 6.5% 33 1.4% 165 7.1% 11 0.5% 207.051 Roseville 1.21 5,516 4,558.7 2218 442 8.0% 112 2.0% 387 7.0% 47 0.9% 207.052 Roseville 0.45 2,270 5,044.4 909 430 18.9% 43 1.9% 25 1.1% 53 2.3% 207.053 Roseville 0.83 3,378 4,069.9 1382 911 27.0% 23 0.7% 81 2.4% 181 5.4% 208.1 W. Central Roseville 0.49 2,081 4,246.9 1,077 469 22.5% 74 3.6% 186 8.9% 213 10.2% 208.2 W. Central Roseville 0.45 1,927 4,282.2 821 552 28.6% 32 1.7% 71 3.7% 34 1.8% 208.3 W. Central Roseville 0.76 3,379 4,446.1 1,408 339 10.0% 58 1.7% 144 4.3% 13 0.4% 209.011 West Roseville 0.13 231 1,776.9 136 38 16.5% 7 3.0% 47 20.3% 28 12.1% 209.012 West Roseville 0.54 3,225 5,972.2 1445 370 11.5% 195 6.0% 563 17.5% 110 3.4% 209.021 West Roseville 5.19 1,183 227.9 600 260 22.0% 115 9.7% 80 6.8% 28 2.4% 209.022 West Roseville 3.07 989 322.1 439 153 15.5% 10 1.0% 46 4.7% 19 1.9% 209.023 West Roseville 0.41 3,510 8,561.0 1552 317 9.0% 152 4.3% 158 4.5% 9 0.3% 209.024 West Roseville 0.54 2,674 4,951.9 1216 347 13.0% 154 5.8% 447 16.7% 136 5.1% 210.031 Rosevillle 0.27 1,839 6,811.1 794 283 15.4% 100 5.4% 170 9.2% 40 2.2% 210.032 Rosevillle 0.21 779 3,709.5 334 129 16.6% 59 7.6% 56 7.2% 11 1.4% 210.033 Rosevillle 0.54 701 1,298.1 285 200 28.5% 11 1.6% 0 0.0% 27 3.9% 210.034 Rosevillle 1.82 3,483 1,913.7 1222 349 10.0% 120 3.4% 47 1.3% 16 0.5% 210.041 Rosevillle 3.53 5,055 1,432.0 1672 342 6.8% 81 1.6% 103 2.0% 0 0.0% 210.051 Rosevillle 4.88 7,555 1,548.2 2387 461 6.1% 186 2.5% 0 0.0% 33 0.4% 210.061 Rosevillle 0.75 2,637 3,516.0 1509 2366 89.7% 38 1.4% 36 1.4% 36 1.4% 210.062 Rosevillle 1.12 4,655 4,156.3 2754 4117 88.4% 90 1.9% 75 1.6% 133 2.9% 210.071 Rosevillle 0.43 6,553 15,239.5 2110 311 4.7% 181 2.8% 152 2.3% 84 1.3% 210.072 Rosevillle 2.35 8,693 3,699.1 3186 874 10.1% 186 2.1% 125 1.4% 168 1.9% 210.081 Rosevillle 0.42 2,681 6,383.3 1087 353 13.2% 137 5.1% 159 5.9% 97 3.6% 210.082 Rosevillle 0.81 7,217 8,909.9 2818 973 13.5% 185 2.6% 251 3.5% 120 1.7% 211.031 Rocklin 1.09 1,502 1,378.0 529 162 10.8% 37 2.5% 270 18.0% 45 3.0% 211.032 Rocklin 0.11 615 5,590.9 229 88 14.3% 0 0.0% 69 11.2% 17 2.8% 211.033 Rocklin 0.56 1,263 2,255.4 512 150 11.9% 37 2.9% 140 11.1% 78 6.2% 211.034 Rocklin 0.18 854 4,744.4 315 126 14.8% 0 0.0% 137 16.0% 0 0.0% 211.041 Rocklin 5.78 9,343 1,616.4 3186 1171 12.5% 100 1.1% 134 1.4% 30 0.3% 211.051 Rocklin 1.06 6,315 5,957.5 2322 435 6.9% 184 2.9% 376 6.0% 26 0.4% 211.061 Rocklin 0.74 2,695 3,641.9 1046 568 21.1% 8 0.3% 54 2.0% 0 0.0% 211.071 Rocklin 0.74 3,899 5,268.9 1573 415 10.6% 143 3.7% 177 4.5% 40 1.0% 211.072 Rocklin 3.00 3,433 1,144.3 1213 305 8.9% 39 1.1% 99 2.9% 110 3.2% 211.081 Rocklin 0.27 663 2,455.6 293 125 18.9% 0 0.0% 70 10.6% 23 3.5% 211.082 Rocklin 0.41 2,640 6,439.0 1152 591 22.4% 62 2.3% 142 5.4% 127 4.8% 211.091 Rocklin 2.12 3,384 1,596.2 1224 469 13.9% 41 1.2% 23 0.7% 0 0.0% 212.1 Loomis/Penryn 9.51 1,880 197.7 680 353 18.8% 34 1.8% 116 6.2% 29 1.5% 212.2 Loomis/Penryn 3.86 2,118 548.7 774 411 19.4% 50 2.4% 107 5.1% 11 0.5% 212.3 Loomis/Penryn 1.39 458 329.5 171 100 21.8% 9 2.0% 0 0.0% 6 1.3% 212.4 Loomis/Penryn 2.61 2,849 1,091.6 1112 523 18.4% 17 0.6% 112 3.9% 22 0.8% 212.5 Loomis/Penryn 0.89 2,318 2,604.5 747 247 10.7% 34 1.5% 20 0.9% 5 0.2% 213.011 West Placer County 45.98 3,648 79.3 1352 442 12.1% 105 2.9% 159 4.4% 45 1.2% 213.012 West Placer County 67.40 2,250 33.4 867 401 17.8% 144 6.4% 174 7.7% 39 1.7% 213.031 Northwest Placer County 16.79 11,765 700.7 4193 1563 13.3% 69 0.6% 54 0.5% 24 0.2% 213.041 Northwest Placer County 38.50 3,758 97.6 1389 633 16.8% 142 3.8% 387 10.3% 73 1.9% 213.042 Northwest Placer County 19.36 1,535 79.3 530 221 14.4% 32 2.1% 58 3.8% 17 1.1% 213.043 Northwest Placer County 8.77 2,781 317.1 1084 606 21.8% 148 5.3% 155 5.6% 49 1.8% 213.044 Northwest Placer County 10.87 2,076 191.0 722 382 18.4% 24 1.2% 39 1.9% 92 4.4% 214.011 Lincoln 0.62 1,219 1,966.1 430 215 17.6% 104 8.5% 134 11.0% 40 3.3% 214.012 Lincoln 0.27 1,018 3,770.4 331 119 11.7% 40 3.9% 55 5.4% 28 2.8% 214.013 Lincoln 0.19 454 2,389.5 157 69 15.2% 12 2.6% 9 2.0% 33 7.3% 214.021 Lincoln 0.26 1,063 4,088.5 372 179 16.8% 18 1.7% 81 7.6% 32 3.0% 214.022 Lincoln 0.24 950 3,958.3 321 178 18.7% 18 1.9% 87 9.2% 42 4.4% 214.023 Lincoln 0.42 4,811 11,454.8 1531 416 8.6% 355 7.4% 954 19.8% 125 2.6% 214.024 West Placer County 1.68 682 406.0 239 92 13.5% 17 2.5% 0 0.0% 30 4.4% 215.011 Edgewood 4.33 871 201.2 321 192 22.0% 31 3.6% 34 3.9% 0 0.0% 215.012 Edgewood 2.56 2654 1,036.7 1140 633 23.9% 106 4.0% 183 6.9% 154 5.8% 215.013 Edgewood 3.84 1349 351.3 516 254 18.8% 77 5.7% 51 3.8% 7 0.5% 215.021 Bowman Area 0.99 2954 2,983.8 1134 585 19.8% 44 1.5% 125 4.2% 34 1.2% 215.022 Bowman Area 1.83 1105 603.8 459 212 19.2% 11 1.0% 89 8.1% 29 2.6% 216.1 W. of Northern SR 49 25.41 2,925 115.1 1135 711 24.3% 63 2.2% 210 7.2% 22 0.8% 216.2 W. of Northern SR 49 11.68 1,507 129.0 573 323 21.4% 19 1.3% 26 1.7% 10 0.7% 216.3 W. of Northern SR 49 1.13 3,165 2,800.9 1220 1095 34.6% 69 2.2% 222 7.0% 168 5.3% 216.4 W. of Northern SR 49 0.05 1,354 27,080.0 507 82 6.1% 58 4.3% 322 23.8% 68 5.0% 218.011 Clipper Gap 4.75 1,324 278.7 449 187 14.1% 45 3.4% 19 1.4% 0 0.0% 218.012 Clipper Gap 3.85 1,742 452.5 642 336 19.3% 13 0.7% 16 0.9% 21 1.2% 218.013 Clipper Gap 1.53 800 522.9 292 185 23.1% 19 2.4% 67 8.4% 59 7.4% 218.014 Clipper Gap 2.82 740 262.4 266 171 23.1% 6 0.8% 51 6.9% 0 0.0% 218.021 Bell Road Area 2.92 1,708 584.9 503 504 29.5% 80 4.7% 153 9.0% 40 2.3% 218.022 Bell Road Area 0.84 2,779 3,308.3 1242 1041 37.5% 39 1.4% 57 2.1% 130 4.7% 218.023 Bell Road Area 0.80 1,150 1,437.5 402 232 20.2% 38 3.3% 108 9.4% 10 0.9% 218.024 Bell Road Area 3.57 1,215 340.3 491 198 16.3% 0 0.0% 111 9.1% 0 0.0% 219.011 Applegate Area 3.69 1,359 368.3 488 195 14.3% 13 1.0% 119 8.8% 0 0.0% 219.012 Applegate Area 12.54 1,756 140.0 728 368 21.0% 44 2.5% 65 3.7% 26 1.5% 219.021 Meadow Vista Area 2.96 1,911 645.6 724 439 23.0% 67 3.5% 15 0.8% 7 0.4% 219.022 Meadow Vista Area 6.19 2,307 372.7 860 486 21.1% 29 1.3% 117 5.1% 18 0.8% 219.023 Meadow Vista Area 0.37 144 389.2 46 5 3.5% 3 2.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 220.011 Alta/Baxter 12.67 1,152 90.9 461 197 17.1% 25 2.2% 103 8.9% 25 2.2% 220.012 Alta/Baxter 23.37 995 42.6 380 142 14.3% 47 4.7% 113 11.4% 8 0.8% 220.013 Northeast Placer County 144.49 755 5.2 296 138 18.3% 39 5.2% 9 1.2% 6 0.8% 220.014 Northeast Placer County 19.05 46 2.4 22 10 21.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 220.015 Northeast Placer County 73.18 1,405 19.2 534 145 10.3% 0 0.0% 152 10.8% 7 0.5% 220.016 Northeast Placer County 24.58 1,352 55.0 594 144 10.7% 15 1.1% 105 7.8% 6 0.4% 220.021 Colfax Area 2.09 945 452.2 398 230 24.3% 49 5.2% 56 5.9% 12 1.3% 220.022 Colfax Area 7.86 2,451 311.8 947 415 16.9% 30 1.2% 139 5.7% 26 1.1% 220.023 Colfax Area 15.26 2,098 137.5 841 364 17.3% 24 1.1% 129 6.1% 51 2.4% Placer County Totals 1330.46 288,524 216.9 110,893 50,594 17.5% 6,576 2.3% 13,936 4.8% 5,221 1.8%

Noteote 1: Mobility-limited o e ty status figures gu es include c ude pepersons so s agedaged 016 to to 6 64. Note 3: SACOG projections have a 0.002% difference between the 2000 population data by census tract and by city.

Source: Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Projections by Census Tract. TABLE B-3: Placer County Estimated 2010 Demographic Data by Census Tract

Elderly Persons (Aged 60 and Mobility Limited Persons Below Poverty Zero-Vehicles Per Population (3) Households Over) Persons (1) Status (2) Household Census Square Per Sq. Percent Percent Percent Percent of Tract Description Miles Total Number Mile Total Number Total Number of Area Total Number of Area Total Number of Area Total Number Area 202.1 Auburn/ Foresthill 38.49 4,460 115.9 1,730 904 20.3% 88 2.0% 159 3.6% 19 0.4% 202.2 Foresthill Area 5.11 394 77.1 168 72 18.3% 0 0.0% 38 9.6% 9 2.3% 202.3 Foresthill Area 227.94 605 2.7 276 140 23.1% 17 2.8% 30 5.0% 10 1.7% 202.4 Foresthill Area 1.35 778 576.3 296 104 13.4% 34 4.4% 111 14.3% 16 2.1% 202.5 Northeast Placer County 287.74 1 0.003 1 1 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 203.1 Central Auburn 0.99 3,887 3,926.3 1,820 962 24.7% 91 2.3% 329 8.5% 353 9.1% 203.2 Central Auburn 1.14 1,895 1,662.3 841 385 20.3% 55 2.9% 187 9.9% 104 5.5% 204.1 South Auburn 3.07 4,026 1,311.4 1,608 917 22.8% 93 2.3% 147 3.7% 44 1.1% 204.2 South Auburn 0.83 1,853 2,232.5 855 303 16.4% 41 2.2% 138 7.4% 48 2.6% 204.3 South Auburn 0.17 722 4,247.1 342 106 14.7% 20 2.8% 69 9.6% 28 3.9% 205.1 Auburn/ Newcastle 4.89 1,213 248.1 463 207 17.1% 30 2.5% 7 0.6% 8 0.7% 205.2 Auburn/ Newcastle 5.20 2,237 430.2 965 685 30.6% 35 1.6% 66 3.0% 52 2.3% 205.3 Auburn/ Newcastle 1.00 616 616.0 244 93 15.1% 0 0.0% 30 4.9% 6 1.0% 205.4 Auburn/ Newcastle 3.86 935 242.2 396 189 20.2% 30 3.2% 45 4.8% 16 1.7% 205.5 Auburn/ Newcastle 5.76 1,892 328.5 722 427 22.6% 17 0.9% 17 0.9% 19 1.0% 206.011 East Granite Bay 0.98 1,675 1,709.2 636 285 17.0% 0 0.0% 53 3.2% 11 0.7% 206.012 East Granite Bay 8.24 5,508 668.4 2007 969 17.6% 44 0.8% 135 2.5% 20 0.4% 206.013 East Granite Bay 0.47 316 672.3 126 94 29.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 206.021 Area SE of Loomis 4.48 1,603 357.8 598 304 19.0% 33 2.1% 77 4.8% 6 0.4% 206.022 Area SE of Loomis 2.05 954 465.4 336 188 19.7% 0 0.0% 7 0.7% 11 1.2% 206.023 Area SE of Loomis 1.72 971 564.5 394 284 29.2% 18 1.9% 103 10.6% 0 0.0% 206.024 Area SE of Loomis 5.84 2,227 381.3 847 371 16.7% 27 1.2% 153 6.9% 27 1.2% 206.025 Area SE of Loomis 4.63 1,420 306.7 505 273 19.2% 18 1.3% 76 5.4% 0 0.0% 206.041 Granite Bay 1.26 1,124 892.1 407 175 15.6% 33 2.9% 11 1.0% 20 1.8% 206.042 Granite Bay 1.13 2,734 2,419.5 898 297 10.9% 8 0.3% 72 2.6% 7 0.3% 206.043 Granite Bay 1.26 934 741.3 322 158 16.9% 8 0.9% 6 0.6% 0 0.0% 206.044 Granite Bay 0.82 1,622 1,978.0 597 267 16.5% 28 1.7% 76 4.7% 25 1.5% 206.051 Granite Bay 2.30 3,521 1,530.9 1094 247 7.0% 0 0.0% 36 1.0% 11 0.3% 206.052 Granite Bay 1.68 2,679 1,594.6 957 388 14.5% 26 1.0% 114 4.3% 23 0.9% 206.061 Granite Bay 1.57 4,941 3,147.1 1449 246 5.0% 44 0.9% 49 1.0% 0 0.0% 207.021 E. Central Roseville 0.33 2,783 8,433.3 1178 931 33.5% 35 1.3% 206 7.4% 298 10.7% 207.022 E. Central Roseville 0.27 1,778 6,585.2 755 301 16.9% 33 1.9% 33 1.9% 0 0.0% 207.023 E. Central Roseville 0.65 4,877 7,503.1 1979 1409 28.9% 140 2.9% 404 8.3% 235 4.8% 207.031 South Roseville 0.55 4,297 7,812.7 1576 566 13.2% 62 1.4% 146 3.4% 42 1.0% 207.032 South Roseville 0.55 2,429 4,416.4 942 431 17.7% 12 0.5% 87 3.6% 28 1.2% 207.033 South Roseville 0.38 2,698 7,100.0 945 316 11.7% 24 0.9% 16 0.6% 22 0.8% 207.041 Roseville 3.69 2,446 662.9 1204 159 6.5% 34 1.4% 173 7.1% 12 0.5% 207.051 Roseville 1.21 5,794 4,788.4 2340 465 8.0% 118 2.0% 407 7.0% 50 0.9% 207.052 Roseville 0.45 2,384 5,297.8 959 452 19.0% 45 1.9% 26 1.1% 55 2.3% 207.053 Roseville 0.83 3,547 4,273.5 1459 957 27.0% 24 0.7% 85 2.4% 190 5.4% 208.1 W. Central Roseville 0.49 2,083 4,251.0 1,077 470 22.6% 74 3.6% 186 8.9% 213 10.2% 208.2 W. Central Roseville 0.45 1,928 4,284.4 821 553 28.7% 32 1.7% 71 3.7% 34 1.8% 208.3 W. Central Roseville 0.76 3,381 4,448.7 1,408 339 10.0% 58 1.7% 144 4.3% 13 0.4% 209.011 West Roseville 0.13 248 1,907.7 146 40 16.1% 7 2.8% 50 20.2% 31 12.5% 209.012 West Roseville 0.54 3,462 6,411.1 1553 397 11.5% 209 6.0% 604 17.4% 119 3.4% 209.021 West Roseville 5.19 1,269 244.5 645 279 22.0% 123 9.7% 86 6.8% 31 2.4% 209.022 West Roseville 3.07 1,062 345.9 472 164 15.4% 11 1.0% 49 4.6% 21 2.0% 209.023 West Roseville 0.41 3,768 9,190.2 1668 340 9.0% 163 4.3% 170 4.5% 10 0.3% 209.024 West Roseville 0.54 2,870 5,314.8 1307 373 13.0% 165 5.7% 479 16.7% 146 5.1% 210.031 Rosevillle 0.27 2,103 7,788.9 922 324 15.4% 114 5.4% 194 9.2% 45 2.1% 210.032 Rosevillle 0.21 891 4,242.9 387 147 16.5% 67 7.5% 64 7.2% 13 1.5% 210.033 Rosevillle 0.54 802 1,485.2 331 229 28.6% 13 1.6% 0 0.0% 31 3.9% 210.034 Rosevillle 1.82 3,984 2,189.0 1419 399 10.0% 138 3.5% 53 1.3% 19 0.5% 210.041 Rosevillle 3.53 5,781 1,637.7 1941 391 6.8% 92 1.6% 117 2.0% 0 0.0% 210.051 Rosevillle 4.88 8,641 1,770.7 2771 528 6.1% 213 2.5% 0 0.0% 38 0.4% 210.061 Rosevillle 0.75 3,016 4,021.3 1752 2706 89.7% 44 1.5% 41 1.4% 41 1.4% 210.062 Rosevillle 1.12 5,324 4,753.6 3196 4709 88.4% 103 1.9% 86 1.6% 152 2.9% 210.071 Rosevillle 0.43 7,495 17,430.2 2449 355 4.7% 207 2.8% 174 2.3% 96 1.3% 210.072 Rosevillle 2.35 9,942 4,230.6 3699 999 10.0% 213 2.1% 142 1.4% 193 1.9% 210.081 Rosevillle 0.42 3,066 7,300.0 1262 404 13.2% 157 5.1% 182 5.9% 111 3.6% 210.082 Rosevillle 0.81 8,254 10,190.1 3272 1113 13.5% 211 2.6% 287 3.5% 138 1.7% 211.031 Rocklin 1.09 1,683 1,544.0 596 181 10.8% 41 2.4% 302 17.9% 50 3.0% 211.032 Rocklin 0.11 689 6,263.6 258 99 14.4% 0 0.0% 77 11.2% 19 2.8% 211.033 Rocklin 0.56 1,416 2,528.6 578 168 11.9% 41 2.9% 157 11.1% 87 6.1% 211.034 Rocklin 0.18 957 5,316.7 355 141 14.7% 0 0.0% 153 16.0% 0 0.0% 211.041 Rocklin 5.78 10,470 1,811.4 3591 1313 12.5% 112 1.1% 150 1.4% 33 0.3% 211.051 Rocklin 1.06 7,077 6,676.4 2617 487 6.9% 206 2.9% 422 6.0% 30 0.4% 211.061 Rocklin 0.74 3,020 4,081.1 1178 636 21.1% 9 0.3% 60 2.0% 0 0.0% 211.071 Rocklin 0.74 4,369 5,904.1 1773 465 10.6% 161 3.7% 198 4.5% 45 1.0% 211.072 Rocklin 3.00 3,847 1,282.3 1367 342 8.9% 44 1.1% 111 2.9% 123 3.2% 211.081 Rocklin 0.27 743 2,751.9 330 140 18.8% 0 0.0% 78 10.5% 26 3.5% 211.082 Rocklin 0.41 2,958 7,214.6 1299 662 22.4% 69 2.3% 159 5.4% 143 4.8% 211.091 Rocklin 2.12 3,792 1,788.7 1379 526 13.9% 46 1.2% 26 0.7% 0 0.0% 212.1 Loomis/Penryn 9.51 2,352 247.3 864 441 18.8% 43 1.8% 145 6.2% 37 1.6% 212.2 Loomis/Penryn 3.86 2,650 686.5 983 515 19.4% 63 2.4% 134 5.1% 14 0.5% 212.3 Loomis/Penryn 1.39 573 412.2 217 125 21.8% 11 1.9% 0 0.0% 8 1.4% 212.4 Loomis/Penryn 2.61 3,563 1,365.1 1413 654 18.4% 21 0.6% 141 4.0% 27 0.8% 212.5 Loomis/Penryn 0.89 2,899 3,257.3 948 309 10.7% 43 1.5% 24 0.8% 6 0.2% 213.011 West Placer County 45.98 5,639 122.6 2033 684 12.1% 163 2.9% 246 4.4% 70 1.2% 213.012 West Placer County 67.40 3,478 51.6 1304 621 17.9% 222 6.4% 269 7.7% 60 1.7% 213.031 Northwest Placer County 16.79 18,185 1,083.1 6304 2416 13.3% 106 0.6% 83 0.5% 37 0.2% 213.041 Northwest Placer County 38.50 5,808 150.9 2088 979 16.9% 219 3.8% 597 10.3% 113 1.9% 213.042 Northwest Placer County 19.36 2,373 122.6 797 342 14.4% 50 2.1% 90 3.8% 27 1.1% 213.043 Northwest Placer County 8.77 4,298 490.1 1629 936 21.8% 229 5.3% 239 5.6% 76 1.8% 213.044 Northwest Placer County 10.87 3,209 295.2 1085 591 18.4% 37 1.2% 60 1.9% 143 4.5% 214.011 Lincoln 0.62 1,334 2,151.6 470 235 17.6% 113 8.5% 146 10.9% 44 3.3% 214.012 Lincoln 0.27 1,114 4,125.9 362 130 11.7% 44 3.9% 60 5.4% 31 2.8% 214.013 Lincoln 0.19 497 2,615.8 171 76 15.3% 13 2.6% 9 1.8% 37 7.4% 214.021 Lincoln 0.26 1,164 4,476.9 406 196 16.8% 20 1.7% 89 7.6% 35 3.0% 214.022 Lincoln 0.24 1,040 4,333.3 350 195 18.8% 20 1.9% 96 9.2% 46 4.4% 214.023 Lincoln 0.42 5,266 12,538.1 1672 456 8.7% 388 7.4% 1045 19.8% 137 2.6% 214.024 West Placer County 1.68 746 444.0 261 100 13.4% 19 2.5% 0 0.0% 33 4.4% 215.011 Edgewood 4.33 999 230.7 373 221 22.1% 36 3.6% 38 3.8% 0 0.0% 215.012 Edgewood 2.56 3043 1,188.7 1325 726 23.9% 122 4.0% 210 6.9% 177 5.8% 215.013 Edgewood 3.84 1547 402.9 599 291 18.8% 88 5.7% 59 3.8% 8 0.5% 215.021 Bowman Area 0.99 3388 3,422.2 1317 670 19.8% 50 1.5% 144 4.3% 38 1.1% 215.022 Bowman Area 1.83 1268 692.9 533 244 19.2% 13 1.0% 103 8.1% 33 2.6% 216.1 W. of Northern SR 49 25.41 3,182 125.2 1234 774 24.3% 69 2.2% 228 7.2% 24 0.8% 216.2 W. of Northern SR 49 11.68 1,639 140.3 623 351 21.4% 21 1.3% 28 1.7% 11 0.7% 216.3 W. of Northern SR 49 1.13 3,443 3,046.9 1325 1191 34.6% 76 2.2% 241 7.0% 183 5.3% 216.4 W. of Northern SR 49 0.05 1,472 29,440.0 551 89 6.0% 64 4.3% 350 23.8% 74 5.0% 218.011 Clipper Gap 4.75 1,479 311.4 503 209 14.1% 50 3.4% 22 1.5% 0 0.0% 218.012 Clipper Gap 3.85 1,946 505.5 718 375 19.3% 14 0.7% 18 0.9% 23 1.2% 218.013 Clipper Gap 1.53 893 583.7 327 207 23.2% 22 2.5% 75 8.4% 66 7.4% 218.014 Clipper Gap 2.82 827 293.3 298 191 23.1% 6 0.7% 57 6.9% 0 0.0% 218.021 Bell Road Area 2.92 1,907 653.1 563 563 29.5% 89 4.7% 171 9.0% 45 2.4% 218.022 Bell Road Area 0.84 3,104 3,695.2 1390 1162 37.4% 43 1.4% 64 2.1% 145 4.7% 218.023 Bell Road Area 0.80 1,285 1,606.3 450 259 20.2% 42 3.3% 121 9.4% 11 0.9% 218.024 Bell Road Area 3.57 1,357 380.1 550 221 16.3% 0 0.0% 124 9.1% 0 0.0% 219.011 Applegate Area 3.69 1,360 368.6 494 195 14.3% 13 1.0% 119 8.8% 0 0.0% 219.012 Applegate Area 12.54 1,757 140.1 738 368 20.9% 44 2.5% 65 3.7% 26 1.5% 219.021 Meadow Vista Area 2.96 1,912 645.9 734 439 23.0% 67 3.5% 15 0.8% 7 0.4% 219.022 Meadow Vista Area 6.19 2,308 372.9 871 487 21.1% 29 1.3% 117 5.1% 18 0.8% 219.023 Meadow Vista Area 0.37 144 389.2 46 5 3.5% 3 2.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 220.011 Alta/Baxter 12.67 1,220 96.3 495 209 17.1% 26 2.1% 109 8.9% 26 2.1% 220.012 Alta/Baxter 23.37 1,053 45.1 408 150 14.2% 49 4.7% 120 11.4% 9 0.9% 220.013 Northeast Placer County 144.49 800 5.5 317 146 18.3% 42 5.3% 10 1.3% 7 0.9% 220.014 Northeast Placer County 19.05 48 2.5 24 11 22.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 220.015 Northeast Placer County 73.18 1,488 20.3 574 154 10.3% 0 0.0% 161 10.8% 8 0.5% 220.016 Northeast Placer County 24.58 1,432 58.3 638 153 10.7% 15 1.0% 111 7.8% 7 0.5% 220.021 Colfax Area 2.09 1,001 478.9 427 244 24.4% 52 5.2% 59 5.9% 13 1.3% 220.022 Colfax Area 7.86 2,595 330.2 1017 439 16.9% 32 1.2% 147 5.7% 27 1.0% 220.023 Colfax Area 15.26 2,222 145.6 904 386 17.4% 25 1.1% 136 6.1% 54 2.4% Placer County Totals 1330.46 329,474 247.6 126,779 57,578 17.5% 7,534 2.3% 15,691 4.8% 5,897 1.8%

Note 1: Mobility-limitedyg figures include pgpersons aged 16 to 64. Note 3: SACOG projections have a 0.002% difference between the 2000 population data by census tract and by city.

Source: Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Projections by Census Tract.

APPENDIX C

TABLE C1-A: Placer County Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route: Highway 49 Northbound (Weekday)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Highway 49 - Northbound Elder's Transfer Center 0 83 Foote's Florist 0 14 Nevada St.R.O.P. 1 12 Valley Oaks 2 9 Luther & 49/Hwy 49 5 1 Belair 23 5 Ralph's / Rite Aid 18 7 Prof / Education 14 0 Dewitt - Sheriff 27 1 Dewitt - 1st & E Ave. 18 2 Dewitt Admin Bldg. 2 0 Quartz / Galena 2 2 Chana HS 3 0 Subtotal Highway 49 - Northbound 115 136 North Auburn Loop Chana HS 1 1 Dry Creek 2 0 RCMHP 3 0 Quartz / Hwy 49 1 1 Belair 0 1 Ralph's / Rite Aid 3 1 Dewitt - Sheriff (Drop off only) 0 0 Quartz/Galena (Drop off only) 0 0 Subtotal North Auburn Loop 10 4 TOTAL 125 140

Passengers Passengers Route Time of Day Alighting Boarding Highway 49 - Northbound 7:00 AM to 7:59 AM * 8 8 8:00 AM to 8:59 AM 20 21 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM * 19 19 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM 11 18 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM * 3 4 Noon to 12:59 PM 7 7 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM * 9 12 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM 8 10 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM 10 12 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM * 13 13 5:00 PM to 5:59 PM 6 9 6:00 PM to 6:59 PM * 1 3 Subtotal Highway 49 - Northbound 115 136 North Auburn Loop 7:00 AM to 7:59 AM * 0 0 8:00 AM to 8:59 AM 0 0 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM * N/A N/A 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM 0 0 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM * 1 1 Noon to 12:59 PM 0 0 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM * 2 1 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM 2 1 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM 1 1 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM * 0 0 5:00 PM to 5:59 PM 4 0 Subtotal North Auburn Loop 10 4 TOTAL 125 140

* Runs completed by LSC, Inc. in June 2003. All others completed by Moore & Associates in October 2002. TABLE C1-B: Placer County Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route: Highway 49 Southbound (Weekday)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Highway 49 - Southbound Chana HS 0 3 Dry Creek 0 7 RCMHP 0 0 Quartz and Hwy 49 0 4 Quartz and Galena 0 19 Professional / Education 1 6 Dewitt - 1st & E Ave. 2 7 Dewitt / Admin Build 1 5 Dewitt - Sheriff 1 21 Ralph's / Rite Aid 7 24 Belair 5 12 Atwood Park & Ride 0 0 Luther Rd. & Hwy 49 0 6 Valley Oaks 5 1 Nevada St.P.O. 10 2 Nevada St. Amtrak 8 0 Elm and High 14 0 Elder's Transfer Center 64 17 TOTAL SOUTHBOUND 118 134

Passengers Passengers Route Time of Day Alighting Boarding Highway 49 - Southbound 6:00 AM to 6:59 AM * 6 6 7:00 AM to 7:59 AM * 8 28 8:00 AM to 8:59 AM * 9 9 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM 7 8 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM * 8 11 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM 12 13 Noon to 12:59 PM * 10 9 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM 11 11 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM * 9 8 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM 11 10 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM 12 11 5:00 PM to 5:59 PM * 13 9 6:00 PM to 6:59 PM 2 1 TOTAL SOUTHBOUND 118 134 * Runs completed by LSC, Inc. in June 2003. All others completed by Moore & Associates in October 2002. TABLE C1-C: Placer County Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route: Highway 49 (Saturday)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Highway 49 - Northbound (Saturday) Elder's Transfer Center 0 22 Foote's Florist 1 1 Nevada St.R.O.P. 0 0 Valley Oaks 1 1 Luther & 49/Hwy 49 2 0 Belair 3 0 Ralph's / Rite Aid 3 1 Prof / Education 0 0 Dewitt - Sheriff 20 Dewitt - 1st & E Ave. 1 0 Dewitt Admin Bldg. 0 0 Quartz / Galena 4 0 Chana HS 0 0 Subtotal Highway 49 - Northbound (Saturday) 17 25

North Auburn Loop (Saturday) Chana HS 0 0 Dry Creek 00 RCMHP 1 0 Quartz / Hwy 49 00 Belair 0 0 Ralph's / Rite Aid 0 0 Dewitt - Sheriff (Drop off only) 00 Quartz/Galena (Drop off only) 3 0 Subtotal North Auburn Loop (Saturday) 4 0 Highway 49 - Southbound (Saturday) Chana HS 0 0 Dry Creek 12 RCMHP 0 0 Quartz and Hwy 49 0 0 Quartz and Galena 0 2 Professional / Education 0 0 Dewitt - 1st & E Ave. 0 0 Dewitt / Admin Build 1 1 Dewitt - Sheriff 25 Ralph's / Rite Aid 2 7 Belair 2 2 Atwood Park & Ride 0 0 Luther Rd. & Hwy 49 0 2 Valley Oaks 2 0 Nevada St.P.O. 2 3 Nevada St. Amtrak 00 Elm and High 3 0 Elder's Transfer Center 14 0 Subtotal Highway 49 - Southbound (Saturday) 29 24 TOTAL 50 49

Passengers Passengers Route Time of Day Alighting Boarding Highway 49 - Northbound (Saturday) 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM 5 6 Noon to 12:59 PM -- -- 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM 7 11 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM -- -- 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM 5 8 Subtotal Highway 49 - Northbound (Saturday) 17 25 North Auburn Loop (Saturday) 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM 1 0 Noon to 12:59 PM -- -- 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM 3 0 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM -- -- 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM 0 0 Subtotal North Auburn Loop (Saturday) 4 0 Highway 49 - Southbound (Saturday) Noon to 12:59 PM 7 7 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM -- -- 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM 16 11 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM -- -- 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM 6 6 Subtotal Highway 49 - Southbound (Saturday) 29 24 TOTAL 50 49 Source: Moore & Associates, October 2002. TABLE C1-D: Placer County Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route: Sierra College (Weekday)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Sierra College Lincoln 2 31 Atherton 0 1 Sunwest / West Oaks 1 1 Belair 2 5 Costco 0 3 Galleria 33 10 Wal-Mart 0 1 South Whitney / Sunset 4 2 Lynroc 12 1 Pacific/Pine 1 0 E.Midas 0 0 Grove 1 0 Tuttle / Sierra MDWS 0 0 Sierra College 8 3 Sierra College 0 8 Safeway (Street) 0 8 Tuttle / Sierra MDWS 0 1 Grove 0 0 E. Midas 0 0 Pacific / Pine 7 1 Lynroc 0 3 South Whitney / Sunset 0 0 Wal-Mart 1 5 Galleria 11 30 Costco 0 0 Belair 4 2 Sunwest / West Oaks 2 1 Atherton 3 0 Lincoln 20 3 TOTAL 112 120

Passengers Passengers Route Time of Day Alighting Boarding Sierra College 6:00 AM to 6:59 AM 2 2 7:00 AM to 7:59 AM 15 15 8:00 AM to 8:59 AM 5 2 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM 8 9 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM 11 12 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM 8 8 Noon to 12:59 PM 10 11 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM 4 6 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM 9 8 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM 11 13 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM 14 14 5:00 PM to 5:59 PM 8 13 6:00 PM to 6:59 PM 3 3 7:00 PM to 7:59 PM 4 4 TOTAL 112 120 Source: Moore & Associates, October 2002. TABLE C1-E: Placer County Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route: Sierra College (Saturday)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Sierra College (Saturday) Lincoln 1 5 Atherton 0 0 Sunwest/West Oaks 0 0 Belair 1 1 Costco 0 0 Galleria 5 2 Wal-Mart 2 1 So. Whitney/Sunset 0 0 Lynroc 1 0 Pacific/Pine 0 0 E.Midas 0 0 Grove 0 0 Tuttle/Sierra MDWS 0 0 Sierra College 2 1 Sierra College 0 2 Safeway (Street) 0 0 Tuttle/Sierra MDWS 0 0 Grove 0 0 E. Midas 0 0 Pacific / Pine 0 1 Lynroc 0 0 So. Whitney/Sunset 0 4 Wal-Mart 0 0 Galleria 7 7 Costco 1 1 Belair 2 1 Sunwest/West Oaks 1 0 Atherton 0 0 Lincoln 7 3 TOTAL 30 29

Passengers Passengers Route Time of Day Alighting Boarding Sierra College (Saturday) 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM 3 4 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM 4 2 Noon to 12:59 PM 9 11 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM 4 3 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM 6 4 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM 4 5 TOTAL 30 29 Source: Moore & Associates, October 2002. TABLE C1-F: Placer County Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route: Auburn - Light Rail (Tuesday 1)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Auburn - Light Rail (Tuesday 1) Elder's Transfer Center 11 34 Sierra College 10 9 Galleria 7 12 Auburn & Orlando 8 2 Light Rail 17 16 Louis Lane & Orlando 3 12 Galleria 9 21 Sierra College 22 3 TOTAL (Tuesday 1) 87 109

Passengers Passengers Route Time of Day Alighting Boarding Auburn - Light Rail (Tuesday 1) 6:00 AM to 6:59 AM 6 14 7:00 AM to 7:59 AM 8 6 8:00 AM to 8:59 AM 22 29 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM 12 3 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM 14 20 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM 6 9 Noon to 12:59 PM 14 13 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM 5 15 TOTAL (Tuesday 1) 87 109 Source: Moore & Associates, October 2002. TABLE C1-G: Placer County Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route: Auburn - Light Rail (Tuesday 2)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Auburn - Light Rail (Tuesday 2) Elder's Transfer Center * 34 33 Sierra College * 1 13 Galleria * 27 31 Auburn & Orlando * 16 11 Light Rail * 50 38 Louis Lane & Orlando * 12 14 Galleria * 29 24 Sierra College * 12 5 TOTAL (Tuesday 2) 181 169

Passengers Passengers Route Time of Day Alighting Boarding Auburn - Light Rail (Tuesday 2) 6:00 AM to 6:59 AM * 13 15 7:00 AM to 7:59 AM * 18 15 8:00 AM to 8:59 AM * 5 13 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM * 13 5 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM * 4 10 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM * 6 4 Noon to 12:59 PM * 4 0 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM * 9 16 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM * 14 7 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM * 12 16 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM * 15 11 5:00 PM to 5:59 PM * 33 38 6:00 PM to 6:59 PM * 19 8 7:00 PM to 7:59 PM * 13 9 8:00 PM to 8:59 PM * 3 2 TOTAL (Tuesday 2) 181 169 * Runs completed by LSC, Inc. in June 2003. All others completed by Moore & Associates in October 2002. TABLE C1-H: Placer County Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route: Auburn - Light Rail (Thursday)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Auburn - Light Rail (Thursday) Elder's Transfer Center 17 18 Sierra College 6 19 Galleria 22 9 Auburn & Orlando 23 5 Light Rail 12 21 Louis Lane & Orlando 11 9 Galleria 13 10 Sierra College 5 9 TOTAL (Thursday) 109 100

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding Auburn - Light Rail (Thursday) Noon to 12:59 PM 2 3 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM 15 7 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM 10 14 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM 34 31 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM 13 16 5:00 PM to 5:59 PM 19 12 6:00 PM to 6:59 PM 16 17 TOTAL (Thursday) 109 100 Source: Moore & Associates, October 2002. TABLE C1-I: Placer County Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route: Auburn - Light Rail (Saturday)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Auburn - Light Rail (Saturday) Elder's Transfer Center 13 19 Sierra College 2 4 Galleria 10 4 Auburn & Orlando 5 5 Light Rail 12 7 Louis Lane & Orlando 1 2 Galleria 6 5 Sierra College 0 4 TOTAL 49 50

Passengers Passengers Route Time of Day Alighting Boarding Auburn - Light Rail (Saturday) 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM 3 7 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM 7 13 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM 16 10 Noon to 12:59 PM 2 4 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM 17 10 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM 4 6 TOTAL 49 50 Source: Moore & Associates, October 2002. TABLE C1-J: Placer County Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route: Colfax-Alta

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Colfax-Alta (Morning) Elder's Transfer Center 00 Bowman 00 Christian Valley 00 Meadow Vista 00 Applegate 00 Weimar 01 Colfax Amtrak 10 Gold Run 00 Dutch Flat 00 Alta Store 03 Dutch Flat 01 Gold Run 0 1 Colfax Amtrak 04 Weimar 03 Applegate 0 1 Meadow Vista 0 0 Christian Valley 0 0 Bowman 0 0 Subtotal AM 1 14 Colfax-Alta (Afternoon) Elder's Transfer Center * 09 ARC * 01 Bowman * 01 Applegate * 11 Canyon Way * 10 Colfax Amtrak * 00 McDonalds * 10 Sierra Market * 10 Canyon Court * 10 Dutch Flat * 10 Mattell Ct. * 10 Montell Way * 10 Alta Store * 00 Alta Power House Rd. * 20 Alta Bunny Nook Rd. * 10 Casa Lomor * 10 Colfax Amtrak * 00 Sierra Market * 01 Geisendorfer Rd. * 00 Applegate * 00 Meadow Vista * 01 Glen Oaks * 10 Elder's Transfer Center * 00 Subtotal PM 13 14 TOTAL 14 28

Passengers Passengers Route Time of Day Alighting Boarding Colfax-Alta (Morning) 7:00 AM to 7:59 AM 1 1 8:00 AM to 8:59 AM 0 13 Subtotal AM 114 Colfax-Alta (Afternoon) 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM * 5 12 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM * 7 1 5:00 PM to 5:59 PM * 1 1 Subtotal PM 13 14 TOTAL 14 28 * Runs completed by LSC, Inc. in June 2003. All others completed by Moore & Associates in October 2002. NOTE: Italics indicate a bus stop that is not on the schedule. TABLE C1-K: Placer County Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route: Taylor Road (Tuesday)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Taylor Road (Tuesday) Elder's Transfer Center * 0 9 Ophir Park & Ride * 0 0 Newcastle-Taylor Road * 2 0 Penryn * 1 3 Loomis * 4 2 Sierra College * 8 0 Sierra College * 0 6 Loomis * 6 6 Penryn * 1 0 Newcastle-Taylor Road * 0 1 Ophir Park & Ride * 0 2 Elder's Transfer Center * 4 0 TOTAL (Tuesday) 26 29

Passengers Passengers Route Time of Day Alighting Boarding Taylor Rd (Tuesday) 6:00 AM to 6:59 AM * 1 1 7:00 AM to 7:59 AM * 0 1 8:00 AM to 8:59 AM * 2 8 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM * 2 1 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM * 2 3 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM * 1 1 Noon to 12:59 PM * 3 5 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM * 2 2 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM * 5 1 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM * 3 1 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM * 3 3 5:00 PM to 5:59 PM * 0 0 6:00 PM to 6:59 PM * 0 2 7:00 PM to 7:59 PM * 1 0 8:00 PM to 8:59 PM * 1 0 TOTAL (Tuesday) 26 29

* Runs completed by LSC, Inc. in June 2003. All others completed by Moore & Associates in October 2002. TABLE C1-L: Placer County Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route: Taylor Road (Thursday)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Taylor Road (Thursday) Elder's Transfer Center 0 1 Ophir Park & Ride 0 0 Newcastle-Taylor Road 0 0 Penryn 0 3 Loomis 0 1 Sierra College 5 0 Sierra College 1 11 Loomis 7 0 Penryn 1 0 Newcastle-Taylor Road 0 0 Ophir Park & Ride 0 1 Elder's Transfer Center 5 0 TOTAL (Thursday) 19 17

Passengers Passengers Route Time of Day Alighting Boarding Taylor Road (Thursday) 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM 1 1 Noon to 12:59 PM 1 4 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM 2 5 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM 4 2 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM 3 5 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM 8 0 TOTAL (Thursday) 19 17 Source: Moore & Associates, October 2002. TABLE C1-M: Placer County Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route: Lincoln to Sierra College

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Lincoln Sierra College * 0 7 Safeway * 1 3 AMF Rocklin Lanes * 0 1 Pacific / Sierra Meadows * 0 1 Pacific/Midas * 0 1 Pacific/Pine * 0 0 Lynroc * 1 0 Sunset / South Whitney * 1 1 South Whitney / Springfield *0 1 Wal-Mart * 1 0 Galleria * 10 16 Costco * 0 3 Belair * 2 5 Blue Oaks Blvd. / Sunset *0 1 Sunset / West Oaks * 3 1 Atherton * 2 0 Safeway *2 0 Lincoln * 19 1 Lincoln * 0 11 Atherton * 0 1 Sunset / West Oaks * 0 1 Blue Oaks Blvd *0 5 Belair * 3 8 Costco * 6 1 Galleria * 13 15 Wal-Mart * 4 0 Sunset / South Whitney * 3 1 Lynroc * 4 0 Pacific/Pine * 1 0 Pacific/Midas * 1 0 Pacific / Sierra Meadows * 4 0 Sierra Meadows * 1 0 Just Before Jaspers *1 0 Jaspers * 3 0 Sierra College * 0 0 TOTAL 86 85

Passengers Passengers Route Time of Day Alighting Boarding Lincoln 6:00 AM to 6:59 AM * 5 5 7:00 AM to 7:59 AM * 9 9 8:00 AM to 8:59 AM * 10 10 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM * 6 6 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM * 1 7 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM * 12 12 Noon to 12:59 PM -- -- 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM * 14 7 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM * 3 2 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM * 9 9 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM * 8 8 5:00 PM to 5:59 PM * 6 6 6:00 PM to 6:59 PM * 3 3 7:00 PM to 7:59 PM * 0 1 TOTAL 86 85 * Run completed by LSC, Inc. in June 2003. All others completed by Moore & Associates in October 2002. NOTE: Italics indicate a stop that is not on the schedule. TABLE C2-A: Auburn Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Red Route

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Auburn - Red Route Elder's Transfer Center *0 14 Courthouse *1 0 Nevada St. / P.O. *1 0 Library *0 1 P.O. / DMV *0 0 Nevada Street / SR 49 *0 0 Marguerite Mine / Palms *0 0 Valley Oaks *0 2 Town Center *7 10 Mikkelson/Villa/Brookside *1 0 Auburn Ravine Rd. / Ashford Park *1 1 Raleys Center * 3 4 Luther / Racquet Club *1 0 Raley's / Bowling Alley *7 0 Lincoln/McDonalds *1 0 Lincoln Way / Hidden Glen Way *0 2 Lincoln Way / Alta Vista * 2 2 Lincoln Way / Elm Avenue *1 2 Lubeck *2 0 Elm/High * 2 0 Bank of America *1 0 Elder's Transfer Center *5 0 TOTAL 36 38

Passengers Passengers Route Time of Day Alighting Boarding Auburn - Red Route 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM 5 5 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM 1 1 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM 3 3 Noon to 12:59 PM 1 1 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM * 7 7 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM -- -- 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM 9 11 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM -- -- 5:00 PM to 5:59 PM * 10 10 TOTAL 36 38 * Runs completed by LSC, Inc. in June 2003. All others completed by Moore & Associates in October 2002. Note: Italics indicate stops that are not on the schedule. TABLE C2-B: Auburn Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Blue Route

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Auburn - Blue Route Elder's Transfer Center *0 18 Old Town P.O. *0 1 Community Center *0 4 Maidu Market / Indian Ranch *1 4 Carolyn/Ginger/Poet *0 1 Pacific / Sacramento St. *1 1 High St. / Fairgrounds *0 5 Lincoln Way / High St. *1 0 Lubeck Mansion / Borland *2 7 Lincoln / Hwy 49 *2 0 Lincoln Way / Alta Vista * 4 11 Lincoln / Carls Jr. *1 0 Raley's Center * 8 11 Bowling Alley * 3 6 Jimboys / E. Hillcrest *0 1 Auburn Ravine Rd. / Ashford Park *5 4 Placer Credit Union *1 0 Mikkelson / Valley Oaks *2 0 Palm Ave. / Hwy 49 *2 0 Nevada St. / P.O. *3 0 Staples/Fulweiler * 1 0 Town Center *112 Elder's Transfer Center 22 0 TOTAL 70 76

Passengers Passengers Route Time of Day Alighting Boarding Auburn - Blue Route 6:00 AM to 6:59 AM 4 4 7:00 AM to 7:59 AM 2 4 8:00 AM to 8:59 AM -- -- 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM 16 15 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM 4 7 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM 12 14 Noon to 12:59 PM 8 8 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM * 12 12 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM -- -- 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM 12 12 TOTAL 70 76 * Runs completed by LSC, Inc. in June 2003. All others completed by Moore & Associates in October 2002. Note: Italics indicate stops that are not on the schedule. TABLE C-3A: Lincoln Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route 102

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding 102 3rd & F Streets 0 0 D Street & SR 193 0 3 6th & D Streets 0 0 6th & A Streets 0 8 East Ave. & E. 8th St. 0 2 E. 9th & Herold Streets 0 2 Harrison & E. 11th Streets 0 2 E. 12th St. & East Ave. 20 0 7th & C Streets 0 13 7th & H Streets 0 1 6th & L Streets 1 0 2nd & L Streets 8 0 1st & O Streets 13 0 1st & R Streets 0 0 1st & Fuller Streets 3 0 TOTAL 45 31

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding 102 7:00 AM to 7:59 AM 45 31

Source: Moore & Associates, October 2002. TABLE C-3B: Lincoln Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route 202

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding 202 3rd & F Streets 0 3 D St. & SR 193 0 0 East Ave. & E. 8th Sreet 1 0 E. 9th & Herold Streets 0 0 Harrison & E. 11th Streets 0 0 E 12th St. & East Ave. 0 17 8th & B Streets 0 0 8th & D Streets 0 1 6th & F Streets 0 0 6th & D Streets 1 0 6th & A Streets 1 2 SR 193 & B Street 0 0 D St. & SR 193 3 0 D & 1st Streets 0 0 1st & H Streets 0 0 1st & Mariner Streets 0 0 5th & N Streets 3 0 1st & O Streets 3 2 1st Street & Fuller Lane 2 0 Rose Bouquet & DW 0 0 Sun City Lane & DW 1 1 Safeway & SR 65 0 0 3rd & F Streets 2 0 TOTAL 17 26

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding 202 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM 1 6 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM 5 1 Noon to 12:59 PM 2 2 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM 0 0 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM 5 15 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM 4 2 TOTAL 17 26 Source: Moore & Associates, October 2002. TABLE C-3C: Lincoln Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route 203

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding 203 3rd & F Streets * 0 8 1st & I Streets * 0 1 1st & L Streets * 0 0 1st & O Streets * 0 5 1st & R Streets * 5 5 1st & Fuller Streets * 0 1 1st & Chamber Streets * 0 0 1st & Saint Tropez Streets * 0 0 3rd & Chambers Streets * 0 0 3rd Street & Senior Center * 0 0 3rd & L Streets * 0 0 3rd & J Streets * 0 0 3rd & H Streets * 0 0 6th & H Streets * 1 1 6th & J Streets * 0 0 6th & L Streets * 0 0 6th & O Streets * 0 0 8th & Q Streets * 0 0 Flightline Drive * 0 0 Aviation & Venture * 0 0 Venture & Swallowview *0 0 Lakeside & Floradale * 0 0 Lakeside & St. Andrews * 0 0 Lakeside & Nicolas * 10 5th & Joiner Streets * 0 0 5th & R Streets * 0 1 5th & O Streets * 0 0 5th & N Streets * 0 0 5th & K Streets * 0 0 5th & H Streets * 1 0 1st & O Streets * 0 0 1st & Fuller Streets * 0 0 D Street & SR 193 * 0 0 E. 9th & Herold Streets * 0 0 Harrison & E. 11th Streets * 0 0 8th & D Streets * 0 0 6th & A Streets * 0 0 3rd & F Streets * 1 0 TOTAL 9 22

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding 203 8:00 AM to 8:59 AM 0 0 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM 1 3 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM 1 2 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM 0 5 Noon to 12:59 PM 0 3 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM 0 2 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM * 1 2 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM * 3 2 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM * 2 3 5:00 PM to 5:59 PM * 1 0 TOTAL 9 22 * Includes runs completed by LSC, Inc. Note: Italics indicate runs that are not on the schedule. Source: Moore & Associates, October 2002. TABLE C4-A: Roseville Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route A (Weekday)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Roseville A (Weekday) Galleria Transfer Point 2 24 Antelope Creek Dr. at Creekside Ridge Dr. 2 0 Galleria Blvd. at Antelope Creek Dr. 1 0 Roseville Parkway at Taylor Rd. 2 4 Sutter Roseville Medical Center 5 4 N. Sunrise Ave.at UA Theatre 0 0 N. Sunrise Ave. at Eureka Rd. 0 1 N. Sunrise Ave. at Home Depot 0 1 N. Sunrise Ave. at Lead Hill Blvd. 3 0 Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 11 13 Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 2 3 Santa Clara Dr. at Placer Village 2 2 151 N. Sunrise Ave. 3 4 N. Sunrise Ave. at Lead Hill Blvd. 0 1 N. Sunrise Ave. at Auto Mall 2 0 N. Sunrise Ave. at Eureka Rd. 0 0 Sutter Roseville Medical Center 6 7 Roseville Parkway at N. Sunrise Ave. 0 1 Roseville Parkway at Taylor Rd. 0 3 Galleria Transfer Point 28 0 TOTAL 69 68

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding Roseville A (Weekday) 6:00 AM to 6:59 AM * 3 3 7:00 AM to 7:59 AM 10 10 8:00 AM to 8:59 AM 1 1 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM 1 1 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM 8 8 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM 7 6 Noon to 12:59 PM 7 2 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM 6 6 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM * 12 10 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM * 4 5 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM * 6 11 5:00 PM to 5:59 PM * 2 3 6:00 PM to 6:59 PM * 2 2 7:00 PM to 7:59 PM * 0 0 TOTAL 69 68

* Includes runs completed by LSC, Inc. Source: LSC and Moore & Associates. TABLE C4-B: Roseville Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route A (Saturday)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Roseville A (Sat) Galleria Transfer Point 2 11 Antelope Creek Dr. at Creekside Ridge Dr. 0 1 Galleria Blvd. at Antelope Creek Dr. 0 0 Roseville Parkway at Taylor Rd. 0 0 Sutter Roseville Medical Center 0 1 N. Sunrise Ave.at UA Theatre 0 0 N. Sunrise Ave. at Eureka Rd. 0 0 N. Sunrise Ave. at Home Depot 0 0 N. Sunrise Ave. at Lead Hill Blvd. 1 0 Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 4 1 Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 0 8 Santa Clara Dr. at Placer Village 0 0 151 N. Sunrise Ave. 0 1 N. Sunrise Ave. at Lead Hill Blvd. 0 0 N. Sunrise Ave. at Auto Mall 2 0 N. Sunrise Ave. at Eureka Rd. 0 0 Sutter Roseville Medical Center 3 0 Roseville Parkway at N. Sunrise Ave. 0 0 Roseville Parkway at Taylor Rd. 1 0 Galleria Transfer Point 10 0 TOTAL 23 23

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding Roseville A (Sat) 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM 1 1 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM 4 4 Noon to 12:59 PM 1 1 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM 9 9 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM 2 3 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM 4 5 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM 2 0 TOTAL 23 23 Source: LSC and Moore & Associates. TABLE C4-C: Roseville Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route B (Weekday)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Roseville B (Weekday) Galleria Transfer Point 0 24 Antelope Creek Dr. at Creekside Ridge Dr. 2 4 Galleria Blvd. at Antelope Creek Dr. 0 0 Atlantic St. at Center St. 1 0 Atlantic St. at Yosemite St. 1 0 City Hall Transfer Point 27 17 City Hall Transfer Point 0 17 Atlantic St. at Yosemite St. 1 0 Atlantic St. at Center St. 2 0 Galleria Transfer Point 21 0 TOTAL 55 62

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding Roseville B (Weekday) 6:00 AM to 6:59 AM * 2 2 7:00 AM to 7:59 AM 3 3 8:00 AM to 8:59 AM 4 4 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM 0 2 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM 3 4 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM 4 2 Noon to 12:59 PM 1 5 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM 1 4 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM 4 4 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM * 10 10 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM * 3 2 5:00 PM to 5:59 PM * 18 16 6:00 PM to 6:59 PM * 0 2 7:00 PM to 7:59 PM * 2 2 TOTAL 55 62

* Includes runs completed by LSC, Inc. Source: LSC and Moore & Associates. TABLE C4-D: Roseville Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route B (Saturday)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Roseville B (Sat) Galleria Transfer Point 0 6 Antelope Creek Dr. at Creekside Ridge Dr. 0 1 Galleria Blvd. at Antelope Creek Dr. 0 0 Atlantic St. at Center St. 1 2 Atlantic St. at Yosemite St. 0 0 City Hall Transfer Point 6 0 City Hall Transfer Point 2 4 Atlantic St. at Yosemite St. 0 0 Atlantic St. at Center St. 0 0 Galleria Transfer Point 3 0 TOTAL 12 13

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding Roseville B (Sat) 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM 2 2 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM 3 3 Noon to 12:59 PM 0 0 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM 3 3 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM 1 2 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM 0 1 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM 2 1 5:00 PM to 5:59 PM 1 1 TOTAL 12 13 Source: LSC and Moore & Associates. TABLE C4-E: Roseville Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route C (Tuesday)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Roseville C (Tuesday) Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 0 1 Santa Clara Dr. at Placer Village 0 0 Douglas Blvd. At Mel's Diner 0 0 Douglas Blvd at TJ Maxx Ctr. 1 0 Rocky Ridge Dr. past Professional Dr. 0 0 Rocky Ridge Dr. at Maidu Park 0 0 Champion Oaks Dr. at McLaren Dr. 1 0 S. Cirby Way at Nighthawk Circle 0 0 Cirby Way at Rocky Ridge Dr. 0 0 Cirby Way at Parkview Dr. (Oakmont HS) 1 0 Sunrise Ave. at Cirby Way 0 0 Sunrise Ave. at IHOP 1 2 Francis Dr. at Sunrise Ave. 0 1 Santa Clara Dr. at Santa Clara Apt. 0 0 Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 1 0 Subtotal Roseville C (Tuesday) 5 4 Roseville Reverse C (Tuesday) Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 1 1 Santa Clara Dr. Placer Village 0 3 Santa Clara Dr. Santa Clara Apts 0 0 Francis Dr. at Sunrise Ave. 0 0 Sunrise Ave. at Conroy Ln 0 0 720 Sunrise Ave. 1 0 Sunvrise Ave before Madden Ln 0 0 Cirby Way at Sunrise Ave. 1 0 Cirby Way at Oakmont HS 0 0 1900 S. Cirby at Pepperwood Apt 3 0 Champion Oaks Dr. at S. Cirby Way 0 0 Champion Oaks Dr. before McLaren 0 0 Rocky Ridge Dr. at Maidu Park 0 0 Rocky Ridge Dr. at Hackmore Dr. 0 0 Douglas Blvd. At Rocky Ridge Dr. (Target) 0 0 Douglas Blvd. At Mervyns 0 0 Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 0 0 Subtotal Roseville Reverse C (Tuesday) 6 4 TOTAL (Tuesday) 11 8

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding Roseville C (Tuesday) 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM 0 0 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM -- -- 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM 1 2 Noon to 12:59 PM -- -- 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM 4 2 Subtotal Roseville C (Tuesday) 5 4 Roseville Reverse C (Tuesday) 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM 4 4 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM -- -- 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM 0 0 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM -- -- 5:00 PM to 5:59 PM 2 0 Subtotal Roseville Reverse C (Tuesday) 6 4 TOTAL (Tuesday) 5 4 Source: LSC and Moore & Associates. TABLE C4-F: Roseville Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route C (Wednesday)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Roseville C (Wednesday) Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 0 2 Santa Clara Dr. at Placer Village 0 0 Douglas Blvd. At Mel's Diner 0 0 Douglas Blvd at TJ Maxx Ctr. 1 2 Rocky Ridge Dr. past Professional Dr. 0 0 Rocky Ridge Dr. at Maidu Park 0 0 Champion Oaks Dr. at McLaren Dr. 1 1 S. Cirby Way at Nighthawk Circle 5 5 Cirby Way at Rocky Ridge Dr. 0 0 Cirby Way at Parkview Dr. (Oakmont HS) 1 0 Sunrise Ave. at Cirby Way 0 0 Sunrise Ave. at IHOP 2 0 Francis Dr. at Sunrise Ave. 0 0 Santa Clara Dr. at Santa Clara Apt. 1 0 Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 1 3 Subtotal Roseville C (Wednesday) 12 13 Roseville Reverse C (Wednesday) Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 0 2 Santa Clara Dr. Placer Village 0 0 Santa Clara Dr. Santa Clara Apts 0 0 Francis Dr. at Sunrise Ave. 0 1 Sunrise Ave. at Conroy Ln 0 1 720 Sunrise Ave. 1 0 Sunvrise Ave before Madden Ln 0 0 Cirby Way at Sunrise Ave. 1 1 Cirby Way at Oakmont HS 0 0 1900 S. Cirby at Pepperwood Apt 0 5 Champion Oaks Dr. at S. Cirby Way 0 2 Champion Oaks Dr. before McLaren 1 3 Rocky Ridge Dr. at Maidu Park 1 0 Rocky Ridge Dr. at Hackmore Dr. 0 0 Douglas Blvd. At Rocky Ridge Dr. (Target) 3 0 Douglas Blvd. At Mervyns 3 0 Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 2 5 Subtotal Roseville Reverse C (Wednesday) 12 20 TOTAL (Wednesday) 24 33

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding Roseville C (Wednesday) 7:00 AM to 7:59 AM * 0 0 8:00 AM to 8:59 AM -- -- 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM -- -- 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM 1 1 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM -- -- Noon to 12:59 PM 3 5 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM -- -- 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM -- -- 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM -- -- 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM * 5 5 5:00 PM to 5:59 PM -- -- 6:00 PM to 6:59 PM * 2 1 7:00 PM to 7:59 PM * 1 1 Subtotal Roseville C (Wednesday) 12 13 Roseville Reverse C (Wednesday) 6:00 AM to 6:59 AM 0 0 7:00 AM to 7:59 AM * 2 2 8:00 AM to 8:59 AM 2 5 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM * 1 1 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM 1 4 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM * 1 1 Noon to 12:59 PM 1 1 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM -- -- 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM -- -- 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM -- -- 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM * 4 4 5:00 PM to 5:59 PM -- -- 6:00 PM to 6:59 PM * 0 2 Subtotal Roseville Reverse C (Wednesday) 12 20 TOTAL 24 33 * Includes runs completed by LSC, Inc. Source: LSC and Moore & Associates. TABLE C4-G: Roseville Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route C (Thursday)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Roseville C (Thursday) Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 0 2 Santa Clara Dr. at Placer Village 0 0 Douglas Blvd. At Mel's Diner 0 1 Douglas Blvd at TJ Maxx Ctr. 0 0 Rocky Ridge Dr. past Professional Dr. 0 0 Rocky Ridge Dr. at Maidu Park 0 0 Champion Oaks Dr. at McLaren Dr. 1 0 S. Cirby Way at Nighthawk Circle 5 6 Cirby Way at Rocky Ridge Dr. 0 0 Cirby Way at Parkview Dr. (Oakmont HS) 0 0 Sunrise Ave. at Cirby Way 2 0 Sunrise Ave. at IHOP 2 0 Francis Dr. at Sunrise Ave. 2 0 Santa Clara Dr. at Santa Clara Apt. 0 0 Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 2 0 TOTAL (Thursday) 14 9

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding Roseville C (Thursday) 6:00 AM to 6:59 AM 1 1 7:00 AM to 7:59 AM -- -- 8:00 AM to 8:59 AM 4 4 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM -- -- 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM -- -- 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM -- -- Noon to 12:59 PM -- -- 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM -- -- 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM -- -- 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM 3 2 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM -- -- 5:00 PM to 5:59 PM 6 2 TOTAL (Thursday) 14 9 Source: LSC and Moore & Associates. TABLE C4-H: Roseville Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route C (Saturday)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Roseville C (Saturday) Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 0 2 Santa Clara Dr. at Placer Village 0 1 Douglas Blvd. At Mel's Diner 1 0 Douglas Blvd at TJ Maxx Ctr. 0 0 Rocky Ridge Dr. past Professional Dr. 0 0 Rocky Ridge Dr. at Maidu Park 0 0 Champion Oaks Dr. at McLaren Dr. 0 0 S. Cirby Way at Nighthawk Circle 2 4 Cirby Way at Rocky Ridge Dr. 0 0 Cirby Way at Parkview Dr. (Oakmont HS) 0 0 Sunrise Ave. at Cirby Way 0 0 Sunrise Ave. at IHOP 1 2 Francis Dr. at Sunrise Ave. 0 0 Santa Clara Dr. at Santa Clara Apt. 1 0 Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 4 0 Subtotal Roseville C (Saturday) 9 9 Roseville Reverse C (Saturday) Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 0 0 Santa Clara Dr. Placer Village 0 0 Santa Clara Dr. Santa Clara Apts 0 0 Francis Dr. at Sunrise Ave. 0 0 Sunrise Ave. at Conroy Ln 0 0 720 Sunrise Ave. 0 0 Sunvrise Ave before Madden Ln 0 1 Cirby Way at Sunrise Ave. 0 1 Cirby Way at Oakmont HS 0 0 1900 S. Cirby at Pepperwood Apt 0 1 Champion Oaks Dr. at S. Cirby Way 1 0 Champion Oaks Dr. before McLaren 0 0 Rocky Ridge Dr. at Maidu Park 0 0 Rocky Ridge Dr. at Hackmore Dr. 0 0 Douglas Blvd. At Rocky Ridge Dr. (Target) 1 0 Douglas Blvd. At Mervyns 0 0 Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 1 0 Subtotal Roseville Reverse C (Saturday) 3 3 TOTAL (Saturday) 12 12

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding Roseville C (Saturday) 8:00 AM to 8:59 AM 0 0 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM -- -- 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM 3 4 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM -- -- Noon to 12:59 PM 2 2 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM -- -- 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM 3 2 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM -- -- 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM 1 1 Subtotal Roseville C (Saturday) 9 9 Roseville Reverse C (Saturday) 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM 3 3 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM -- -- 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM 0 0 Noon to 12:59 PM -- -- 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM 0 0 Subtotal Roseville Reverse C (Saturday) 3 3 TOTAL (Saturday) 12 12 Source: LSC and Moore & Associates. TABLE C4-I: Roseville Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route D (Tuesday)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Roseville D (Tuesday) City Hall Transfer Point 03 Main St. at Washington Blvd. 3 0 Main St. at Lomitas Ave. 1 0 Main St. before Atkinson St. 2 0 Main St. at St. John's Church 1 2 Foothills Blvd. at Junction Blvd. 1 2 McAnally Dr. at Foothills Blvd. 0 1 McAnally Dr. before Country Club 00 Woodcreek HS/Roseville Aquatics Complex 00 Herritage Oaks Transfer Point 30 Herritage Oaks Transfer Point 00 Junction Blvd. at Country Club Dr. 0 0 Junction Blvd. Before Revere Dr. 0 0 Junction Blvd. At Foothills Blvd. 0 0 Junction Blvd. At Barbara Dr. 0 0 Washington Blvd. at Junction Blvd. 0 1 Washington Blvd. at Sundance Interiors 0 0 Amtrak Station 0 0 City Hall Transfer Point 42 Subtotal Roseville D (Tuesday) 15 11 Roseville Reverse D (Tuesday) City Hall Transfer Point 27 Washington Blvd at Main St. 0 0 Washington Blvd. At Pleasant St. 0 0 Junction Blvd. At Washington Blvd. 1 0 Junction Blvd at Sawtell Dr. 0 0 Foothills Blvd. at Junction Blvd. 0 0 McAnally Dr. at Foothills Blvd. 3 0 McAnally Dr. before Country Club 00 Woodcreek HS/Roseville Aquatics Complex 127 Herritage Oaks Transfer Point 11 Herritage Oaks Transfer Point 00 Junction Blvd. at Country Club Dr. 0 4 Junction Blvd. at Brickyard Ctr. 16 1 Main St. at Walgreens 8 2 Main St. at Atkinson St. 3 0 Main St. at Weber Park 2 0 Amtrak Station 1 0 City Hall Transfer Point 25 Subtotal Roseville Reverse D (Tuesday) 40 47 TOTAL (Tuesday) 55 58

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding Roseville D (Tuesday) 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM 2 0 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM 8 5 5:00 PM to 5:59 PM 3 5 6:00 PM to 6:59 PM 1 0 7:00 PM to 7:59 PM 1 1 Subtotal Roseville D (Tuesday) 15 11 Roseville Reverse D (Tuesday) 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM 27 33 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM 5 6 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM 4 3 5:00 PM to 5:59 PM 1 2 6:00 PM to 6:59 PM 3 3 Subtotal Roseville Reverse D (Tuesday) 40 47 TOTAL (Tuesday) 55 58 Source: LSC and Moore & Associates. TABLE C4-J: Roseville Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route D (Wednesday)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Roseville D (Wednesday) City Hall Transfer Point 0 8 Main St. at Washington Blvd. 0 1 Main St. at Lomitas Ave. 0 0 Main St. before Atkinson St. 1 0 Main St. at St. John's Church 2 0 Foothills Blvd. at Junction Blvd. 6 1 McAnally Dr. at Foothills Blvd. 0 0 McAnally Dr. before Country Club 1 0 Woodcreek HS/Roseville Aquatics Complex 1 1 Herritage Oaks Transfer Point 0 3 Herritage Oaks Transfer Point 0 1 Junction Blvd. at Country Club Dr. 3 0 Junction Blvd. Before Revere Dr. 0 0 Junction Blvd. At Foothills Blvd. 1 0 Junction Blvd. At Barbara Dr. 0 0 Washington Blvd. at Junction Blvd. 0 0 Washington Blvd. at Sundance Interiors 1 0 Amtrak Station 4 0 City Hall Transfer Point 1 3 Subtotal Roseville D (Wednesday) 21 18 Roseville Reverse D (Wednesday) City Hall Transfer Point 0 7 Washington Blvd at Main St. 0 2 Washington Blvd. At Pleasant St. 0 0 Junction Blvd. At Washington Blvd. 0 0 Junction Blvd at Sawtell Dr. 1 0 Foothills Blvd. at Junction Blvd. 1 0 McAnally Dr. at Foothills Blvd. 1 0 McAnally Dr. before Country Club 0 0 Woodcreek HS/Roseville Aquatics Complex 1 17 Herritage Oaks Transfer Point 2 4 Herritage Oaks Transfer Point 0 0 Junction Blvd. at Country Club Dr. 1 0 Junction Blvd. at Brickyard Ctr. 11 4 Main St. at Walgreens 5 9 Main St. at Atkinson St. 0 4 Main St. at Weber Park 2 1 Amtrak Station 0 2 City Hall Transfer Point 16 0 Subtotal Roseville Reverse D (Wednesday) 41 50 TOTAL (Wednesday) 62 68

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding Roseville D (Wednesday) 6:00 AM to 6:59 AM 1 1 7:00 AM to 7:59 AM 0 0 8:00 AM to 8:59 AM 4 0 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM 1 1 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM 6 6 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM 1 1 Noon to 12:59 PM 5 5 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM 3 4 Subtotal Roseville D (Wednesday) 21 18 Roseville Reverse D (Wednesday) 6:00 AM to 6:59 AM 0 2 7:00 AM to 7:59 AM 3 4 8:00 AM to 8:59 AM 0 1 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM 7 9 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM 10 11 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM 1 4 Noon to 12:59 PM 20 19 Subtotal Roseville Reverse D (Wednesday) 41 50 TOTAL (Wednesday) 62 68 Source: LSC and Moore & Associates. TABLE C4-K: Roseville Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route D (Saturday)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Roseville D (Sat) City Hall Transfer Point 3 7 Main St. at Washington Blvd. 0 3 Main St. at Lomitas Ave. 0 1 Main St. before Atkinson St. 2 0 Main St. at St. John's Church 1 3 Foothills Blvd. at Junction Blvd. 1 0 McAnally Dr. at Foothills Blvd. 0 0 McAnally Dr. before Country Club 0 0 Woodcreek HS/Roseville Aquatics Complex 0 0 Herritage Oaks Transfer Point 1 3 Herritage Oaks Transfer Point 0 0 Junction Blvd. at Country Club Dr. 2 0 Junction Blvd. Before Revere Dr. 0 0 Junction Blvd. At Foothills Blvd. 3 0 Junction Blvd. At Barbara Dr. 0 2 Washington Blvd. at Junction Blvd. 0 0 Washington Blvd. at Sundance Interiors 0 0 Amtrak Station 1 0 City Hall Transfer Point 11 5 Subtotal Roseville D (Sat) 25 24 Roseville Reverse D (Sat) City Hall Transfer Point 0 0 Washington Blvd at Main St. 0 0 Washington Blvd. At Pleasant St. 0 0 Junction Blvd. At Washington Blvd. 0 1 Junction Blvd at Sawtell Dr. 0 0 Foothills Blvd. at Junction Blvd. 0 1 McAnally Dr. at Foothills Blvd. 1 1 McAnally Dr. before Country Club 0 0 Woodcreek HS/Roseville Aquatics Complex 0 0 Herritage Oaks Transfer Point 1 0 Herritage Oaks Transfer Point 0 0 Junction Blvd. at Country Club Dr. 0 2 Junction Blvd. at Brickyard Ctr. 0 1 Main St. at Walgreens 0 2 Main St. at Atkinson St. 3 0 Main St. at Weber Park 3 1 Amtrak Station 0 7 City Hall Transfer Point 3 0 Subtotal Roseville Reverse D (Sat) 11 16 TOTAL (Sat) 36 40

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding Roseville D (Sat) 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM 0 3 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM 4 1 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM 9 7 Noon to 12:59 PM 0 1 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM 0 1 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM 2 3 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM 5 5 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM 5 3 Subtotal Roseville D (Sat) 25 24 Roseville Reverse D (Sat) 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM 4 6 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM 1 4 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM 1 0 Noon to 12:59 PM 2 1 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM 1 3 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM 2 2 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM 0 0 Subtotal Roseville Reverse D (Sat) 11 16 TOTAL (Sat) 36 40 Source: LSC and Moore & Associates. TABLE C4-L: Roseville Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route E (Weekday)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Roseville E (Weekday) Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 0 8 Santa Clara Dr. at Placer Village 0 4 Douglas Blvd.at Mel's Diner 1 2 Douglas Blvd. At TJ Maxx Ctr 1 1 Douglas Blvd. At Rocky Ridge Town Ctr. 2 3 Douglas Blvd. At Eureka Rd. 1 1 Douglas Blvd. At E. Rosville Pkwy 1 1 Sierra College Blvd. At Douglas Blvd. 4 1 Sierra College Blvd. At Indigo Creek Apts. 1 1 Eureka Rd. at Sierra College Blvd. 4 3 Eureka Rd. at Roseville Pkwy. 3 9 Eureka Rd. at Deer Valley Apts 10 3 Douglas Blvd. At Rocky Ridge Dr./Target 4 10 Douglas Blvd. At Mervyns 2 0 Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 11 0 TOTAL (Weekday) 45 47

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding Roseville E (Weekday) 5:00 AM to 5:59 AM * 0 0 6:00 AM to 6:59 AM * 1 3 7:00 AM to 7:59 AM * 6 6 8:00 AM to 8:59 AM * 4 0 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM * 2 0 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM * 3 3 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM * 3 5 Noon to 12:59 PM * 4 3 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM 1 1 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM 0 1 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM 5 7 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM * 8 9 5:00 PM to 5:59 PM * 3 4 6:00 PM to 6:59 PM * 2 2 7:00 PM to 7:59 PM * 3 3 TOTAL (Weekday) 45 47 * Includes runs completed by LSC, Inc. Source: LSC and Moore & Associates. TABLE C4-M: Roseville Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route E (Saturday)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Roseville E (Sat) Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 03 Santa Clara Dr. at Placer Village 0 0 Douglas Blvd.at Mel's Diner 1 0 Douglas Blvd. At TJ Maxx Ctr 00 Douglas Blvd. At Rocky Ridge Town Ctr. 2 0 Douglas Blvd. At Eureka Rd. 0 0 Douglas Blvd. At E. Rosville Pkwy 0 0 Sierra College Blvd. At Douglas Blvd. 0 0 Sierra College Blvd. At Indigo Creek Apts. 0 0 Eureka Rd. at Sierra College Blvd. 0 6 Eureka Rd. at Roseville Pkwy. 0 0 Eureka Rd. at Deer Valley Apts 0 5 Douglas Blvd. At Rocky Ridge Dr./Target 5 1 Douglas Blvd. At Mervyns 0 0 Sierra Garden Transfer Point 20 TOTAL (Sat) 10 15

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding Roseville E (Sat) 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM 1 6 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM -- -- Noon to 12:59 PM 7 7 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM -- -- 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM 1 1 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM -- -- 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM 1 1 TOTAL (Sat) 10 15 Source: LSC and Moore & Associates. TABLE C4-N: Roseville Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route J (Weekday)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Roseville J (Weekday) Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 2 9 Santa Clara Dr. at Placer Village 1 1 Santa Clara Dr. at Santa Clara Apt. 0 0 Francis Dr. before Sunrise Ave. 1 1 Sunrise Ave. at Conroy Ln 0 1 720 Sunrise Ave. 2 6 Sunrise Ave. before Madden Ln. 1 0 Cirby Way at Sunrise Ave. 3 0 Cirby Way before Cirby Hills Dr. 0 5 Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 17 8 Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 0 15 Riverside Ave. at Kaiser Permanente 1 6 Riverside Ave. at Cirby Way 0 0 Riverside Ave. at Roller King 0 0 Riverside Ave. at Darling Way 3 4 Riverside Ave. at Bonita St. 0 5 Vernon St. at Tower Theater 50 City Hall Transfer Point 13 7 City Hall Transfer Point 0 2 Royer St. at Taylor St. (Main Library) 2 0 Douglas Blvd.at Saugstad Park 0 4 Douglas Blvd.at Donner St. 0 1 Douglas Blvd. Before Folsom Rd. 2 1 Library 2 0 Folsom/Kentucky Fried Chicken 4 0 Douglas Blvd at Bonny Knoll 2 0 Douglas Blvd. at Jaurdin 1 0 Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 12 1 SUBTOTAL ROSEVILLE J (WEEKDAY) 74 77 Roseville Reverse J (Weekday) Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 0 11 Santa Clara Dr. at Placer Village 1 10 Douglas Blvd.at Roseville Square 1 0 Douglas Blvd. At Lincoln St. 2 7 Taylor St. at Royer St. (Main Library) 0 0 City Hall Transfer Point 16 14 City Hall Transfer Point 1 13 Vernon St. at Judah St. 5 0 Riverside Ave. at Third St. 9 0 Riverside Ave. at Darling Way 0 3 Riverside Ave. at Kenroy Ln 1 0 Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 14 6 Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 2 14 Riverside Ave. at Kaiser Permanente 1 1 Cirby Way at Kaiser Permanente 3 0 Sunrise Ave. at Cirby Way 2 0 Sunrise Ave. at IHOP 6 2 Francis Dr. at Sunrise Ave. 2 1 Santa Clara Dr. at Santa Clara Apts. 2 0 Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 16 0 SUBTOTAL ROSEVILLE REVERSE J (WEEKDAY) 84 82 TOTAL 158 159

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding Roseville J (Weekday) 5:00 AM to 5:59 AM * 0 1 6:00 AM to 6:59 AM * 1 1 7:00 AM to 7:59 AM * 9 8 8:00 AM to 8:59 AM * 4 4 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM * 2 3 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM * 5 5 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM * 6 6 Noon to 12:59 PM * 10 9 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM * 6 16 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM * 5 1 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM * 3 7 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM * 11 3 5:00 PM to 5:59 PM * 10 10 6:00 PM to 6:59 PM * 1 1 7:00 PM to 7:59 PM * 1 2 8:00 PM to 8:59 PM * 0 0 Subtotal Roseville J (Weekday) 74 77 Roseville Reverse J (Weekday) 6:00 AM to 6:59 AM * 3 3 7:00 AM to 7:59 AM 2 3 8:00 AM to 8:59 AM * 6 6 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM 3 3 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM * 6 6 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM 2 0 Noon to 12:59 PM * 13 13 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM * 12 12 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM 10 9 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM -- -- 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM 10 12 5:00 PM to 5:59 PM * 12 10 6:00 PM to 6:59 PM 5 5 Subtotal Roseville J Reverse (Weekday) 84 82 TOTAL 158 159

* Includes runs completed by LSC, Inc. Note: Italics indicate bus stops that are not on the sch Source: LSC and Moore & Associates. TABLE C4-O: Roseville Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route J (Saturday)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Roseville J (Sat) Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 0 3 Santa Clara Dr. at Placer Village 0 0 Santa Clara Dr. at Santa Clara Apt. 0 1 Francis Dr. before Sunrise Ave. 0 1 720 Sunrise Ave. 0 1 Sunrise Ave. before Madden Ln. 0 0 Cirby Way at Sunrise Ave. 1 0 Cirby Way before Cirby Hills Dr. 0 0 Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 2 0 Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 0 5 Riverside Ave. at Kaiser Permanente 0 0 Riverside Ave. at Cirby Way 00 Riverside Ave. at Roller King 0 0 Riverside Ave. at Darling Way 0 4 Riverside Ave. at Bonita St. 1 0 Vernon St. at Tower Theater 00 City Hall Transfer Point 51 City Hall Transfer Point 03 Royer St. at Taylor St. (Main Library) 00 Douglas Blvd.at Saugstad Park 0 0 Douglas Blvd.at Donner St. 0 2 Douglas Blvd. Before Folsom Rd. 4 0 Douglas Blvd at Bonny Knoll 2 9 Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 13 0 Subtotal Roseville J (Sat) 28 30 Roseville Reverse J (Sat) Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 0 3 Santa Clara Dr. at Placer Village 0 0 Douglas Blvd.at Roseville Square 1 0 Douglas Blvd. At Lincoln St. 0 0 Taylor St. at Royer St. (Main Library) 22 City Hall Transfer Point 00 City Hall Transfer Point 01 Vernon St. at Judah St. 0 1 Riverside Ave. at Third St. 0 0 Riverside Ave. at Darling Way 0 4 Riverside Ave. at Kenroy Ln 0 0 Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 3 0 Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 3 1 Riverside Ave. at Kaiser Permanente 0 0 Cirby Way at Kaiser Permanente 0 0 Sunrise Ave. at Cirby Way 00 Francis Dr. at Sunrise Ave. 0 0 Santa Clara Dr. at Santa Clara Apts. 0 0 Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 2 0 Subtotal Roseville Reverse J (Sat) 11 12 TOTAL 39 42

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding Roseville J (Sat) 8:00 AM to 8:59 AM 1 1 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM 1 2 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM 1 2 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM 8 7 Noon to 12:59 PM 0 0 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM 3 3 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM 1 3 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM 8 7 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM 0 0 5:00 PM to 5:59 PM 5 5 Subtotal Roseville J (Sat) 28 30 Roseville Reverse J (Sat) 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM 1 1 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM -- -- Noon to 12:59 PM 4 4 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM -- -- 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM 6 7 Subtotal Roseville Reverse J (Sat) 11 12 TOTAL 39 42 Source: LSC and Moore & Associates. TABLE C4-P: Roseville Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route K (Weekday)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Roseville K (Weekday) Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 1 6 Santa Clara Dr. at Placer Village 4 1 Santa Clara Dr. at Santa Clara Apt. 0 1 Francis Dr. before Sunrise Ave. 0 2 Sunrise Ave. at Conroy Ln. 0 9 720 Sunrise Ave. 0 1 Sunrise Ave. before Madden Ln. 1 0 Cirby Way at Sunrise Ave. 1 4 Cirby Way before Cirby Hills Dr. 0 3 Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 13 2 Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 0 14 Riverside Ave. at Kaiser Permanente 0 0 Riverside Ave. at Cirby Way 0 6 Riverside Ave. at Roller King 0 1 Riverside Ave. at Darling Way 2 0 Riverside Ave. at Bonita St. (St. Vincent) 4 6 Vernon St. at Tower Theater 3 0 City Hall Transfer Point 18 7 City Hall Transfer Point 0 1 Folsom Rd. at Zola Ave. 0 0 210 Estates Dr. 1 1 Harding Blvd. At Harding Plaza 3 0 Harding Blvd. At DMV 0 3 Lead Hill Blvd. At Harding Blvd. 3 0 Sierra Garden Transfer Point 10 4 Subtotal Roseville K (Weekday) 64 72 Roseville Reverse K (Weekday) Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 1 12 Santa Clara Dr. at Placer Village 3 0 151 N. Sunrise Ave. 0 0 Lean Hill Blvd At N Sunrise Ave(Comp USA) 0 5 Harding Blvd. At DMV 1 2 Harding Blvd. At Harding Plaza 0 1 211 Estates Dr. 0 1 Folsom Rd. Zola Ave. 0 0 City Hall Transfer Point 11 10 City Hall Transfer Point 4 14 Vernon St. at Judah St. 0 3 Riverside Ave. at Third St. 4 2 Riverside Ave. at Darling Way 5 6 Riverside Ave. at Kenroy Ln 1 0 Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 22 8 Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 0 7 Riverside Ave. at Kaiser Permanente 4 1 Cirby Way at Kaiser Permanente 2 1 Sunrise Ave. at Cirby Way 5 0 Sunrise Ave. at IHOP 4 0 Francis Dr. at Sunrise Ave. 2 0 Santa Clara Dr. at Santa Clara Apts. 0 0 Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 6 0 Subtotal Roseville Reverse K (Weekday) 75 73 TOTAL 139 145

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding Roseville K (Weekday) 6:00 AM to 6:59 AM * 3 4 7:00 AM to 7:59 AM 5 5 8:00 AM to 8:59 AM (1) 22 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM 3 3 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM 10 9 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM 4 5 Noon to 12:59 PM 9 11 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM -- -- 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM -- -- 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM * 5 7 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM 12 13 5:00 PM to 5:59 PM * 6 8 6:00 PM to 6:59 PM 2 4 7:00 PM to 7:59 PM * 3 1 Subtotal Roseville K (Weekday) 64 72 Roseville Reverse K (Weekday) 5:00 AM to 5:59 PM 0 1 6:00 AM to 6:59 AM * 4 4 7:00 AM to 7:59 AM * 7 7 8:00 AM to 8:59 AM * 6 7 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM * 7 5 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM * 5 9 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM * 7 6 Noon to 12:59 PM 6 3 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM * 0 0 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM * 10 16 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM * 8 5 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM 6 3 5:00 PM to 5:59 PM * 7 6 6:00 PM to 6:59 PM * 2 1 Subtotal Roseville Reverse K (Weekday) 75 73 TOTAL 139 145 Note 1: No data for the first 10 minutes of the 8:22 run. * Includes runs completed by LSC, Inc. Source: LSC and Moore & Associates. TABLE C4-Q: Roseville Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route K (Saturday)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Roseville K (Sat) Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 40 Santa Clara Dr. at Placer Village 0 0 Santa Clara Dr. at Santa Clara Apt. 0 0 Francis Dr. before Sunrise Ave. 0 0 Sunrise Ave. at Conroy Ln. 0 1 720 Sunrise Ave. 0 0 Sunrise Ave. before Madden Ln. 1 0 Cirby Way at Sunrise Ave. 0 2 Cirby Way before Cirby Hills Dr. 0 0 Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 10 Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 02 Riverside Ave. at Kaiser Permanente 0 0 Riverside Ave. at Cirby Way 00 Riverside Ave. at Roller King 0 0 Riverside Ave. at Darling Way 20 Riverside Ave. at Bonita St. (St. Vincent) 01 Vernon St. at Tower Theater 00 City Hall Transfer Point 20 City Hall Transfer Point 03 Folsom Rd. at Zola Ave. 0 0 210 Estates Dr. 0 0 Harding Blvd. At Harding Plaza 1 0 Harding Blvd. At DMV 10 Lead Hill Blvd. At Harding Blvd. 0 0 Sierra Garden Transfer Point 10 Subtotal Roseville K (Sat) 13 9 Roseville Reverse K (Sat) Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 04 Santa Clara Dr. at Placer Village 0 1 151 N. Sunrise Ave. 0 0 Lean Hill Blvd At N Sunrise Ave(Comp USA) 0 1 Harding Blvd. At DMV 00 Harding Blvd. At Harding Plaza 3 0 211 Estates Dr. 0 2 Folsom Rd. Zola Ave. 1 0 City Hall Transfer Point 24 City Hall Transfer Point 06 Vernon St. at Judah St. 0 1 Riverside Ave. at Third St. 0 0 Riverside Ave. at Darling Way 00 Riverside Ave. at Kenroy Ln 00 Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 40 Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 23 Riverside Ave. at Kaiser Permanente 0 0 Cirby Way at Kaiser Permanente 00 Sunrise Ave. at Cirby Way 00 Sunrise Ave. at IHOP 2 1 Francis Dr. at Sunrise Ave. 0 0 Santa Clara Dr. at Santa Clara Apts. 0 0 Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 60 Subtotal Roseville Reverse K (Sat) 20 23 TOTAL 33 32

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding Roseville K (Sat) 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM 2 1 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM -- -- 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM 7 3 Noon to 12:59 PM -- -- 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM 1 2 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM -- -- 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM 2 2 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM -- -- 5:00 PM to 5:59 PM 1 1 Subtotal Roseville K (Sat) 13 9 Roseville Reverse K (Sat) 8:00 AM to 8:59 AM (1) 00 9:00 AM to 9:59 AM 0 0 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM 1 2 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM 3 4 Noon to 12:59 PM 0 3 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM 9 6 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM 0 1 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM 7 7 Subtotal Roseville Reverse K (Sat) 20 23 TOTAL 33 32 Source: Moore & Associates, October 2002. TABLE C4-R: Roseville Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route M (Weekday)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Roseville M (Weekday) Galleria Transfer Point 0 13 700 Gibson Dr. 0 0 Pleasant Grove Blvd. At Safeway 1 3 Pleasant Grove Blvd. At Hallisey Dr. 2 0 Pleasant Grove Blvd. At Washington Blvd. 0 0 Pleasant Grove Blvd. At Foothills Blvd. 1 0 Country Club Dr. at Pleasant Grove Blvd. 0 0 Country Club dr. McAnally Dr. 1 0 Country Club Dr. at Silverado Jr. High 1 0 Junction Blvd. At Country Club Dr. 6 0 Woodcreek Oaks Blvd. At Junction Blvd. 4 2 Pleasant Grove Blvd. At Ralphs 3 0 Pleasant Grove Blvd. At Sun City Blvd. 0 0 Timber Creek Lodge 0 0 Timber Creek Lodge 0 0 Sun City blvd. At Del Webb Blvd. 1 1 Sun City Blvd. At Dream Garden Dr. 0 0 Woodcreek Oaks Blvd. At Mahany Park 0 0 Woodcreek HS/Roseville Aquatics Center 0 1 Heritage Oaks Transfer Point 1 2 Heritage Oaks Transfer Point 0 0 Country Oaks Dr. at Junction Blvd 0 4 Country Oaks Dr. at Silverado Jr High 0 0 Country Club Dr. at McAnally Dr. 0 0 Pleasant Grove Blvd. Before Foothills Blvd. 2 7 Pleasant Grove Blvd. At Foothills Blvd. 0 1 Pleasant Grove Blvd. At Washington Blvd. 0 0 Pleasant Grove Blvd. At Gold Coast Dr. 1 1 Roseville Parkway at Pleasant Grove Blvd. 1 0 701 Gibson Dr. 0 1 Galleria Transfer Point 15 5 TOTAL 40 41

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding Roseville M (Weekday) 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM 2 2 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM 9 9 Noon to 12:59 PM 6 5 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM 2 3 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM 7 9 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM 9 9 4:00 PM to 4:59 PM 5 4 5:00 PM to 5:59 PM 0 0 TOTAL 40 41 Source: Moore & Associates, October 2002. TABLE C4-S: Roseville Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route M (Saturday)

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Roseville M (Sat) Galleria Transfer Point 2 1 700 Gibson Dr. 0 0 Pleasant Grove Blvd. At Safeway 0 0 Pleasant Grove Blvd. At Hallisey Dr. 0 0 Pleasant Grove Blvd. At Washington Blvd. 0 0 Pleasant Grove Blvd. At Foothills Blvd. 0 0 Country Club Dr. at Pleasant Grove Blvd. 0 0 Country Club dr. McAnally Dr. 0 0 Country Club Dr. at Silverado Jr. High 0 0 Junction Blvd. At Country Club Dr. 1 0 Woodcreek Oaks Blvd. At Junction Blvd. 0 0 Pleasant Grove Blvd. At Ralphs 1 0 Pleasant Grove Blvd. At Sun City Blvd. 0 0 Timber Creek Lodge 0 0 Timber Creek Lodge 0 0 Sun City blvd. At Del Webb Blvd. 0 0 Sun City Blvd. At Dream Garden Dr. 0 0 Woodcreek Oaks Blvd. At Mahany Park 0 0 Woodcreek HS/Roseville Aquatics Center 0 1 Heritage Oaks Transfer Point 0 0 Heritage Oaks Transfer Point 0 0 Country Oaks Dr. at Junction Blvd 0 1 Country Oaks Dr. at Silverado Jr High 0 0 Country Club Dr. at McAnally Dr. 0 0 Pleasant Grove Blvd. Before Foothills Blvd. 1 1 Pleasant Grove Blvd. At Foothills Blvd. 0 0 Pleasant Grove Blvd. At Washington Blvd. 0 0 Pleasant Grove Blvd. At Gold Coast Dr. 0 0 Roseville Parkway at Pleasant Grove Blvd. 0 0 701 Gibson Dr. 0 3 Galleria Transfer Point 8 4 TOTAL 13 11

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding Roseville M (Sat) 10:00 AM to 10:59 AM 2 1 11:00 AM to 11:59 AM 2 2 Noon to 12:59 PM 0 0 1:00 PM to 1:59 PM 1 2 2:00 PM to 2:59 PM 7 5 3:00 PM to 3:59 PM 1 1 TOTAL 13 11 Source: Moore & Associates, October 2002. TABLE C4-T: Roseville Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Route R

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Roseville R Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 0 17 Cirby Way at Riverside Ave. 0 0 Cirby Way at Vernon St. 0 0 Foothills Blvd. At Vineyard Rd. 0 0 Foothills Blvd. At Junction Blvd. 0 0 Foothills Blvd. At McAnally Dr. 0 0 Foothills Blvd. At NEC 1 0 Foothills Blvd. At Misty Wood Dr. 0 0 Foothills Blvd. At Albertsons Dr. 2 0 Foothills Blvd. At Pasco Scientific 0 0 Foothills Blvd. At Pride Industries 14 0 Foothills Blvd. At HP Main Entry 0 0 Foothills Blvd. At Misty Wood Dr. 0 0 Foothills Blvd. At Pleasant Grove Blvd. 0 0 Foothills Blvd. At McAnally Dr. 0 0 Foothills Blvd. At Junction Blvd. 0 0 Foothills Blvd. At Main St. 0 0 Foothills Blvd. At Vineyard Rd. 0 0 Cirby Way at Vernon St. 0 0 Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 0 0 Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 0 0 Cirby Way at Riverside Ave. 0 0 Cirby Way at Vernon St. 0 0 Foothills Blvd. At Vineyard Rd. 0 0 Cirby Way at Vernon St. 0 0 Foothills Blvd. At Junction Blvd. 1 0 Foothills Blvd. At McAnally Dr. 0 0 Foothills Blvd. At NEC 1 0 Foothills Blvd. At Misty Wood Dr. 0 0 Foothills Blvd. At Albertsons Dr. 0 0 Foothills Blvd. At Pasco Scientific 0 0 Foothills Blvd. At Pride Industries 0 0 Foothills Blvd. At HP Main Entry 0 0 Foothills Blvd. At Pleasant Grove Blvd. 0 0 Foothills Blvd. At McAnally Dr. 0 0 Foothills Blvd. At Junction Blvd. 0 0 Foothills Blvd. At Main St. 0 0 Foothills Blvd. At Vineyard Rd. 0 0 Cirby Way at Vernon St. 0 0 Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 0 0 TOTAL 19 17

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding Roseville R 7:00 AM to 7:59 AM 17 17 8:00 AM to 8:59 AM 2 0 TOTAL 19 17 Source: Moore & Associates, October 2002. TABLE C4-U: Roseville Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Commuter Route 1

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Commuter 1 Cirby past Vernon 0 0 Orlando and Louis 0 0 Orlando and Cirby 0 1 Cirby and Sunrise 0 1 Maidu Park 0 6 Rocky Ridge at Kaiser 0 0 Taylor and I-80 0 7 Saugstad Park 0 5 Riverside and 3rd 0 2 Riverside and Darling 0 0 Riverside and Kenroy 0 0 12th past G 0 0 12th and I 2 0 9th and I 2 0 9th and K 2 0 9th and Capitol 4 0 9th and N 2 0 9th and P 1 0 9th and Q 3 0 S and 8th 0 0 5th and R 2 0 5th and P 2 0 N and 6th 0 0 N and 10th 0 0 J and 16th 0 0 J and 18th 0 0 J and 21st 0 0 J and 28th 0 0 Sierra Garden Transfer Point 0 0 TOTAL 20 22

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding Commuter 1 5:00 AM to 5:59 AM 0 22 6:00 AM to 6:59 AM 20 0 TOTAL 20 22 Source: Moore & Associates, October 2002. TABLE C4-V: Roseville Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Commuter Route 2

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Commuter 2 Mohany Park 0 4 Galleria at Roseville 0 5 Taylor and I-80 0 12 12th past G 8 0 12th and I 2 0 9th and I 1 0 9th and K 1 0 9th and Capitol 3 0 9th and N 2 0 9th and O 1 0 9th and P 2 0 9th and Q 0 0 S and 8th 0 0 5th and R 2 0 5th and P 5 0 N and 6th 1 0 N and 10th 0 0 J and 16th 0 0 J and 18th 0 0 J and 21st 0 0 J and 28th 0 0 Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 0 0 TOTAL 28 21

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding Commuter 2 5:00 AM to 5:59 AM 0 9 6:00 AM to 6:59 AM 28 12 TOTAL 28 21 Source: Moore & Associates, October 2002. TABLE C4-W: Roseville Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Commuter Route 3

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Commuter 3 Foothills and Junction 0 4 Foothills at Brookfields 0 0 McAnally and Country Club 0 0 Roseville Aquatic Center 0 1 Junction and Woodcreek 0 0 Junction and Country Club 0 1 Junction and Revere 0 0 Junction and Barbara 0 0 Saugstad Park 0 22 12th past G 0 0 12th and I 6 0 9th and I 7 0 9th and K 1 0 9th and Capitol 2 0 9th and N 3 0 9th and O 0 0 9th and P 4 0 9th and Q 0 0 S and 8th 0 0 5th and R 1 0 5th and P 1 0 N and 6th 3 0 N and 10th 1 0 J and 16th 0 0 J and 18th 0 0 J and 21st 0 0 J and 28th 0 0 Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 1 0 TOTAL 30 28

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding Commuter 3 6:00 AM to 6:59 AM 6 28 7:00 AM to 7:59 AM 24 0 TOTAL 30 28 Source: Moore & Associates, October 2002. TABLE C4-X: Roseville Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Commuter Route 4

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Commuter 4 Cirby past Vernon 0 1 Orlando and Louis 0 0 Orlando and Cirby 0 6 Cirby and Sunrise 0 9 Maidu Park 0 13 Rocky Ridge at Kaiser 0 10 Taylor I-80 0 12 12th past G 1 0 12th and I 6 0 9th and I 6 0 9th and K 4 0 9th and Capitol 5 0 9th and N 10 0 9th and O 1 0 9th and P 6 0 9th and Q 0 0 S and 8th 0 0 5th and R 2 0 5th and P 2 0 N and 6th 2 0 N and 10th 1 0 J and 16th 0 0 J and 18th 0 0 J and 21st 0 0 J and 28th 0 0 Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 0 0 TOTAL 46 51

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding Commuter 4 6:00 AM to 6:59 AM 0 51 7:00 AM to 7:59 AM 46 0 TOTAL 46 51 Source: Moore & Associates, October 2002. TABLE C4-Y: Roseville Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Commuter Route 5

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Commuter 5 Cirby past Vernon 0 2 Taylor and I-80 0 17 Saugstad Park 0 15 Riverside and 3rd 0 1 Riverside and Darling 0 0 Riverside and Kenroy 0 0 12th past G 4 4 12th and I 7 6 9th and I 0 0 9th and K 3 3 9th and Capitol 4 0 9th and N 1 0 9th and O 3 0 9th and P 7 0 9th and Q 0 0 S and 8th 0 0 5th and R 1 0 5th and P 4 0 N and 6th 1 0 N and 10th 0 0 J and 16th 1 0 J and 18th 0 0 J and 21st 0 0 J and 28th 0 0 Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 0 0 TOTAL 36 48

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding Commuter 5 6:00 AM to 6:59 AM 0 35 7:00 AM to 7:59 AM 36 13 TOTAL 36 48 Source: Moore & Associates, October 2002. TABLE C4-Z: Roseville Transit Boarding and Alighting Survey Data Commuter Route 6

Passengers Passengers Route Location Alighting Boarding Commuter 6 Taylor and I-80 0 4 Sierra Garden Transfer Point 0 0 Saugstad Park 0 11 12th past G 0 0 12th and I 1 0 9th and I 0 0 9th and K 2 0 9th and Capitol 2 4 9th and N 2 0 9th and P 2 0 9th and Q 1 0 S and 8th 0 0 5th and R 1 0 5th and P 1 0 N and 6th 0 0 N and 10th 0 0 J and 16th 0 0 J and 18th 0 0 J and 21st 0 0 J and 28th 0 0 Sierra Garden Transfer Point 0 0

TOTAL 12 19

Passengers Passengers Route Time Alighting Boarding Commuter 6 7:00 AM to 7:59 AM 0 15 8:00 AM to 8:59 AM 12 4 TOTAL 12 19 Source: Moore & Associates, October 2002.

APPENDIX D

TABLE D1-A: Placer County Transit Schedule Adherence -- Route 49 (Southbound)

Run Start Time Max. Location 6:10 AM 7:10 AM 8:10 AM 9:10 AM 10:10 AM 11:10 AM 12:10 PM 1:10 PM 2:10 PM 3:10 PM 4:10 PM 5:10 PM 6:10 PM Early Avg. Max. Late

Chana HS 903400355440N/A03.19

Dry Creek Rd. / Dry Lake Ln. N/A N/A 1310N/A4N/A342-1-11.94

RCMHP N/A N/A 1 N/A 1 0 N/A 2 N/A 2 3 1 -2 -2 1.0 3

Quartz and Hwy 49 5 N/A 0 0 -1 0 N/A 1 N/A 1 3 0 58 -1 6.7 58

Quartz and Galena 5 2 -1 -10 -1 0 -2 1 N/A 1 1 1 -2 -10 -0.4 5

Professional / Education 4 N/A 1223N/A3N/A211-2-21.74

Dewitt / 1st & E. Ave. 7 N/A 313402N/A422-1-12.57

Dewitt / Admin Build 7 N/A 2055N/A4N/A621-1-13.17

Dewitt - Sheriff 5525N/A7N/A41631-2-23.47

Ralph's / Rite Aid 451447051832-1-13.38

Belair 450348040741-2-22.98

Atwood Park & Ride N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 0 0.0 0

Luther Rd. & Hwy 49 5826N/A9N/A5N/A971005.29

Valley Oaks 0 N/A 3 8 7 11 N/A 73870-2-24.711

Nevada St.P.O. 2738610N/A5N/A779-3-35.510

Nevada St. Amtrak N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0.0 0

Elm and High 0 8 -2 5 N/A 9 N/A 31760-2-23.29

Elder's Transfer Center -4 4 -3 0 3 6 -5 0 -2 4 4 -2 -6 -6 -0.1 6 TABLE D-1B: Placer County Transit Schedule Adherence -- Route 49 (Northbound)

Run Start Time Max. Location 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 Early Avg. Max. Late

Elder's Transfer Center 020503121353 02.15

Foote's Florist -1 2 0 5 N/A 3 N/A 22253 -12.35

Nevada St.R.O.P. 2249N/A6452292N/A4.39

Valley Oaks -2 -1 262402-2450 -21.76

Luther & 49/Hwy 49 0 N/A 1502N/A5145002.35

Belair 0 -1 3523061771 -12.87

Ralph's / Rite Aid -1 03514-161760 -12.67

Prof / Education 0254451737110 04.111

Dewitt - Sheriff -1 7433516158-1-13.48

Dewitt - 1st & E Ave. -1 7 3 4 N/A 5 N/A 5248N/A-14.18

Dewitt Admin Bldg. -2 7 3 6 N/A 5 N/A 6039N/A-24.19

Quartz / Galena 7 12 34 11 N/A 11 8 10 0 2 N/A N/A 0 10.6 34

Chana HS 6 13 34 11 -19 14 N/A 9 12 4 N/A 0 -19 8.4 34 TABLE D-1C: Placer County Transit Schedule Adherence -- North Auburn Loop

Run Start Time Max. Location 7:36 AM 8:36 AM 9:36 AM 10:36 AM 11:36 AM 12:36 PM 1:36 PM 2:36 PM 3:36 PM 4:36 PM 5:36 PM Early Avg. Max. Late

Chana HS 6 0 N/A 0 11 0 0 0 15 4 11 0 4.7 15

Dry Creek 4 13 N/A 11 10 14 N/A 8 13 4 11 N/A 9.8 14

RCMHP 4 N/A N/A 10 N/A 13 N/A 9 13 4 13 N/A 9.4 13

Quartz / Hwy 49 5 12 N/A 9 N/A 12 6 8 12 6 14 N/A 9.3 14

Belair 7 13 N/A 8 N/A 11 7 10 13 5 13 N/A 9.7 13

Ralph's / Rite Aid 6 14 N/A 11 13 10 7 10 14 4 12 N/A 10.1 14 TABLE D-1D: Placer County Transit Schedule Adherence -- Sierra College Route

Run Start Time Max. Location 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 Early Avg. Max. Late

Lincoln N/A 5 N/A 1 N/A 3 -3 2 2 N/A 4575 -33.17

Atherton N/A 5 N/A 3 N/A 6322N/A7584N/A4.58

Sunwest/West Oaks N/A 5 N/A 3 N/A 6523N/A8594N/A5.09

Belair N/A 8 N/A 2 N/A 7513N/A98104N/A5.710

Costco N/A 7 N/A 2 N/A 8523N/A87113N/A5.611

Galleria N/A 7 N/A 2 N/A 3 -1 N/A 4 N/A 1753 -13.47

Wal-Mart N/A 5 N/A 2 N/A 2 4 N/A 5 N/A 9542N/A4.29

So. Whitney/Sunset N/A 4 N/A 2 N/A 0 3 N/A 4 N/A 7434 03.47

Lynroc N/A 6 N/A 2 N/A 0 3 N/A 5 N/A 11 6 3 2 0 4.2 11

Pacific/Pine N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A -2 2 N/A 3 N/A 10 N/A 0 -5 -5 1.1 10

E.Midas N/A 6 N/A 0 N/A -2 2 N/A 3 N/A 11 6 -1 0 -2 2.8 11

Grove N/A 8 N/A 0 N/A -2 2 N/A 3 N/A 10 8 -2 0 -2 3.0 10

Tuttle/Sierra MDWS N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A -3 -1 N/A 0 N/A 7 N/A -1 0 -3 0.6 7

Sierra College N/A 10 N/A 8 N/A -2 4 N/A 4 N/A 10 10 -1 0 -2 4.8 10

Sierra College N/A 8 N/A 5 N/A 1 1 N/A 1 N/A 6800 03.38

Safeway (Street) N/A 6 N/A 5 N/A 1 0 N/A 1 N/A 8650 03.68

Tuttle/Sierra MDWS N/A 5 N/A 5 N/A 0 0 N/A 1 N/A 7540 03.07

Grove N/A 4 N/A 6 N/A 0 0 N/A 2 N/A 7440 03.07

E. Midas N/A 3 N/A 6 N/A 0 0 N/A 1 N/A 6340 02.66

Pacific / Pine N/A 3 N/A 6 N/A 0 0 N/A 1 N/A 5330 02.36

Lynroc N/A 7 N/A 3 N/A 1 -2 N/A 1 N/A 2730 -22.47

So. Whitney/Sunset N/A 10 N/A -7 N/A 0 0 N/A 3 N/A 1 10 2 0 -7 2.1 10

Wal-Mart N/A 5 N/A 9 N/A -2 0 N/A 1 N/A 2540 -22.79

Galleria 2 3 N/A 3 2 0 5 N/A 2 2 -2 3 2 0 -2 1.8 5

Costco 0 3 N/A 3 1 0 2 N/A 1 1 9 3 -5 0 -5 1.5 9

Belair -1 2 N/A 3 1 -1 0 N/A 2 1 9200 -11.59

Sunwest/West Oaks -2 1 N/A 2 0 0 1 N/A 4 0 9100 -21.39

Atherton 1 2 N/A 2 0 3 3 N/A 5 0 11 2 0 0 0 2.4 11

Lincoln -1 -1 N/A 4 -2 1 4 N/A 4 -2 11 -1 0 0 -2 1.4 11 TABLE D-1E: Placer County Transit Schedule Adherence -- Auburn - Light Rail (Tuesday 1)

Run Start Time Max. Location 5:00 AM 7:00 AM 9:00 AM 11:00 AM 1:00 PM Early Avg. Max. Late

Elder's Transfer Center N/A 032201.83

Sierra College N/A 033202.03

Galleria N/A 000000.00

Auburn & Orlando N/A 5 4 5 N/A N/A 4.7 5

Light Rail N/A 9 0 0 N/A 0 3.0 9

Louis Ln & Orlando N/A 10 1 2 N/A N/A 4.3 10

Galleria 2305N/A02.55

Sierra College 2526N/AN/A3.76 TABLE D-1F: Placer County Transit Schedule Adherence -- Auburn - Light Rail (Tuesday 2)

Run Start Time Max. Location 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 1:00 PM 3:00 PM 5:00 PM 7:00 PM Early Avg. Max. Late

Elder's Transfer Center 0000046 01.46

Sierra College 1 N/A 21055 02.35

Galleria -4 -5 -2 -2 -2 0 0 -5 -2.1 0

Auburn & Orlando 1 -1 04852-12.78

Light Rail -3 -1 -1 1 0 -2 -7 -7 -1.9 1

Louis Ln & Orlando -1 -2 -2 6771-22.37

Galleria -7 -8 -13 -5 -1 -2 -9 -13 -6.4 -1

Sierra College 1231521N/A2.15

Elder's Transfer Center -2 -1 10 0 2 -1 0 -2 1.1 10 TABLE D-1G: Placer County Transit Schedule Adherence -- Auburn - Light Rail (Thursday)

Run Start Time Max. Location 1:00 PM 3:00 PM 5:00 PM 7:00 PM Early Avg. Max. Late

Elder's Transfer Center 2 1 1 -3 -3 0.2 2

Sierra College 2 3 10 3 N/A 4.5 10

Galleria 0 1 7 -1 -1 1.8 7

Auburn & Orlando 6 9 15 N/A N/A 10.0 15

Light Rail 0 1 7 N/A 0 2.7 7

Louis Ln & Orlando 3 5 9 N/A N/A 5.7 9

Galleria 1 2 1 N/A N/A 1.3 2

Sierra College 2 4 5 N/A N/A 3.7 5 TABLE D-1H: PCT Schedule Adherence -- Colfax-Alta

Run Start Time Max. Location 7:00 AM 9:00 AM 3:15 PM Early Avg. Max. Late

Elder's Transfer Ctr. 8 N/A 0 0 4.0 8

Colfax Amtrak N/A N/A 1 N/A 1.0 1

Alta Store 0 0 1 0 0.3 1

Colfax Amtrak 8 N/A 10 N/A 9.0 10 TABLE D-1I: Placer County Transit Schedule Adherence -- Taylor Road Route (Tuesday)

Run Start Time Max. Location 6:35 AM 8:35 AM 10:35 AM 12:35 PM 2:35 PM 4:35 PM 6:35 PM Early Avg. Max. Late

Elder's Station 0000000 00.00

Ophir-Park & Road 0000N/A-12-10.22

Newcastle-Taylor Rd 1 1 -1 1012 -10.72

Penryn -1 0 0 0 N/A -2 -3 -3 -1.0 0

Loomis 0 0 -2 0 -1 -2 3 -2 -0.3 3

Sierra College -6 -7 -9 -3 -4 -8 -8 -9 -6.4 -3

Sierra College -5 -36 0 0 -14 2 6 -36 -6.7 6

Loomis -4 -6 -5 -1 0 -7 0 -7 -3.3 0

Penryn 00002-3-1-3-0.3 2

Newcastle-Taylor Rd 0 -1 -3 -9 -1 -4 -5 -9 -3.3 0

Ophir-Park & Road 1 0 -3 -2 0 -5 -3 -5 -1.7 1

Elder's Station 0 0 13 3 -2 -2 -2 -2 1.4 13 TABLE D-1J: Placer County Transit Schedule Adherence -- Taylor Road Route (Thursday)

Run Start Time Location 10:35 AM 12:35 PM 2:35 PM Max. Early Avg. Max. Late

Elder's Station 5 0 -2 -2 1.0 5

Ophir-Park & Road 4 1 1 N/A 2.0 4

Newcastle-Taylor Rd 3 1 1 N/A 1.7 3

Penryn -1 2 -5 -5 -1.3 2

Loomis -2 0 0 -2 -0.7 0

Sierra College -11 -6 -8 -11 -8.3 -6

Sierra College -2 5 -3 -3 0.0 5

Loomis -2 0 -2 -2 -1.3 0

Penryn -1 2 4 -1 1.7 4

Newcastle-Taylor Rd 0 -2 8 -2 2.0 8

Ophir-Park & Road 1 -3 7 -3 1.7 7

Elder's Station 2 -2 9 -2 3.0 9 TABLE D-1K: Placer County Transit Schedule Adherence -- Lincoln Route

Run Start Time Max. Location 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 1:00 PM 3:00 PM 5:00 PM 7:00 PM Early Avg. Max. Late Sierra College N/A 0 0 -1 N/A -4 -2 -4 -4 -1.8 0 Safeway N/A 0 0 -1 N/A 0 1 1 -1 0.2 1 AMF Rocklin Lanes N/A 0 1 0 N/A 1 1 1 0 0.7 1 Pacific/Sierra Mdws N/A 0 0 0 N/A 1 2 2 0 0.8 2 Pacific/Midas N/A 0 2 0 N/A 1 2 1 0 1.0 2 Pacific/Pine N/A -1 2 0 N/A 1 4 1 -1 1.2 4 Lynroc N/A -1 2 1 N/A 2 4 0 -1 1.3 4 Sunset/S.Whitney N/A -3 0 0 N/A 0 2 0 -3 -0.2 2 Wal-Mart N/A -2 1 0 N/A 0 1 0 -2 0.0 1 Galleria N/A -9 -6 -7 -5 -4 -5 0 -9 -5.1 0 Costco N/A 002326N/A02.26 Belair N/A 102437N/A02.87 Sunset/W. Oaks N/A 135647N/AN/A4.37 Atherton N/A 014337N/A03.07 Lincoln N/A -5 -5 -1 -1 -1 1 N/A -5 -2.0 1

Lincoln 0000-1-11N/A-1-0.1 1 Atherton 1111032N/A01.33 Sunset/W. Oaks 3334232N/AN/A2.94 Belair 2244432N/AN/A3.04 Costco 2355542N/AN/A3.75 Galleria 0 -5 -2 -2 -4 -3 -5 N/A -5 -3.0 0 Wal-Mart N/A 011040N/A01.04 Sunset/S.Whitney N/A 023060N/A01.86 Lynroc N/A 034441N/A02.74 Pacific/Pine N/A 235540N/A03.25 Pacific/Midas N/A 155551N/AN/A3.75 Pacific/Sierra Mdws N/A 155565N/AN/A4.56 Sierra Meadows N/A 164675N/AN/A4.87 Jaspers N/A 269675N/AN/A5.89 Sierra College N/A 6 N/A 11 8 10 8 N/A N/A 8.6 11 TABLE D-2A: Auburn Transit Schedule Adherence -- Red Route

Run Start Time Max. Location 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 5:00 PM Early Avg. Max. Late

Elder's Transfer Ctr. 1012405 01.95

Courthouse 2001425 02.05

Nevada St/P.O. 1304434 02.74

Library 0101426 02.06

P.O./DMV 0102425 02.05

Nevada St/Hwy 49 -1 0 -2 2405 -21.15

Marguerite Mine/Palms -1 -1 -1 0 3 -3 3 -3 0.0 3

Valley Oaks 0 -2 -5 -1 1 -3 2 -5 -1.1 2

Town Center -3 -3 -5 -2 0 -1 1 -5 -1.9 1

Mikkelson/Villa/Brookside -1 -1 0 -2 -1 -2 0 -2 -1.0 0

Auburn Ravine Rd/Ashford Park 0 -1 0 -2 -1 -1 0 -2 -0.7 0

Raleys Center 00310-27-21.37

Lincoln Way/Alta Vista 2 -1 -1 0 11 -2 6 -2 2.1 11

Lincoln Way/Elm Ave 4 -1 -2 -1 N/A 5 9 -2 2.3 9

Elm/High 4 -1 -2 -1 15 15 10 -2 5.7 15

Elder's Transfer Ctr. 1 0 -3 -3 12 14 6 -3 3.9 14 TABLE D-2B: Auburn Transit Schedule Adherence -- Blue Route

Run Start Time Max. Location 6:00 AM 8:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 4:00 PM Early Avg. Max. Late

Elders Station 013012-83-80.33

Old Town Post Office 10301203 01.23

Maidu Mkt- Call In 1 -1 6051N/A7-12.77

Carolyn/Ginger/Poet Smith N/A -1 N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A 5 -1 1.7 5

Pacific/ Sacramento Street 0 0 4 -1 4015 -11.65

High Street/ Fairgrounds -2 1212104 -21.14

Lincoln Wy/High Street -2 1201104 -20.94

Lubeck Mansion/ Borland -3 0 0 -1 1 1 -1 2 -3 -0.1 2

Lincoln Wy/ Alta Vista Schl -2 04101-20-20.34

Raleys Center -3 14101-10-30.44

Bowling Alley -1 14111-10-10.84

Auburn Ravine Rd./Ashford Pk -3 1 2 -1 -1 -1 -4 -1 -4 -1.0 2

Mikkelson/Valley Oaks(Req. Only) N/A 2 4 N/A N/A -1 1 2 -1 1.6 4

Palm Ave./ Hwy 49 -2 1 5 -1 0 1 1 10 -2 1.9 10

Nevada St/Post Office -2 1 4 -2 0 1 1 N/A -2 0.4 4

Staples/Fulweiler -2 7 4 -2 -1 0 1 N/A -2 1.0 7

Town Center -2 5 4 -1 0 1 0 N/A -2 1.0 5

Elders Station -1 785124-1-13.18 TABLE D-3A: Lincoln Transit Schedule Adherence -- Route 102

Run Start Time Location 7:30 AM Max. Early Avg. Max. Late

3rd & F Streets 0 0 0 0 D Street & SR 193 N/A N/A N/A N/A 6th & D Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A 6th & A Streets 0 0 0 0 East Ave. & E. 8th St. N/A N/A N/A N/A E. 9th & Herold Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A Harrison & E. 11th Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A E. 12th St. & East Ave. N/A N/A N/A N/A 7th & C Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A 7th & H Streets 3 N/A 3 3 6th & L Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A 2nd & L Streets 3 N/A 3 3 1st & O Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A 1st & R Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A 1st & Fuller Streets -1 -1 -1 N/A TABLE D-3B: Lincoln Transit Schedule Adherence -- Route 202

Run Start Time Location 9:45 AM 10:45 AM 11:45 AM 12:45 PM 1:45 PM 2:45 PM 3:45 PM 4:45 PM Max. Early Avg. Max. Late

3rd & F Streets 50000-1-4N/A-405

D St. & SR 193 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

East Ave. & E. 8th Sreet N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

E. 9th & Herold Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

Harrison & E. 11th Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

E 12th St. & East Ave. 5 -1 0 -1 0 0 N/A N/A -1 0 5

8th & B Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

8th & D Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

6th & F Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

6th & D Streets 4 -2 -1 -3 -1 -2 N/A N/A -3 -1 4

6th & A Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

SR 193 & B Street N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

D St. & SR 193 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

D & 1st Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

1st & H Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -4 N/A N/A -4 -4 -4

1st & Mariner Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

5th & N Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

1st & O Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

1st Street & Fuller Lane N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

Rose Bouquet & DW 1 N/A 0 -2 0 N/A N/A N/A -2 0 1

Sun City Lane & DW N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

Safeway & SR 65 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

3rd & F Streets -6 -20 0 0 -1 0 N/A N/A -20 -5 0 TABLE D-3C: Lincoln Transit Schedule Adherence -- Route 203

Run Start Time Location 8:45 AM 9:45 AM 10:45 AM 11:25 AM 12:45 PM 1:45 PM 2:45 PM 3:45 PM 4:45 PM Max. Early Avg. Max. Late

3rd & F Streets 10040N/AN/AN/AN/A014 1st & I Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A -2 2 -1 N/A -1 -2 0 2 1st & L Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 1st & O Streets 0 -2 1 5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -2 1 5 1st & R Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A -1 1 N/A 1 -3 -3 0 1 1st & Fuller Streets -3 -4 -2 5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -4 -1 5 1st & Chamber Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A -4 -1 N/A N/A N/A -4 -2 -1 1st & Saint Tropez Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 3rd & Chambers Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 3rd Street & Senior Center N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 3rd & L Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 3rd & J Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 3rd & H Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 6th & H Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 6th & J Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 6th & L Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 6th & O Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 8th & Q Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 Flightline Drive -4 3 5 10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -4 3 10 Aviation & Venture N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5 N/A N/A 1 N/A 3 5 Venture & Swallowview N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 Lakeside & Floradale N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 Lakeside & St. Andrews -3 -2 1 15 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -3 3 15 Lakeside & Nicolas N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 5th & Joiner Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 5th & R Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 5th & O Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 5th & N Streets -2 -3 2 13 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -3 2 13 5th & K Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 5th & H Streets N/A N/A -2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -2 -2 -2 1st & O Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 1st & Fuller Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 D Street & SR 193 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 E. 9th & Herold Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 Harrison & E. 11th Streets N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 8th & D Streets N/A N/A N/A 8 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8 8 6th & A Streets -8 -8 1 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -8 -4 1 TABLE D-4A: Roseville Transit Schedule Adherence -- Route A

Run Start Time

Location 6:32 AM 7:32 AM 8:32 AM 9:32 AM 10:32 AM 11:32 AM 12:32 PM 1:32 PM 2:32 PM 3:32 PM 4:32 PM 5:32 PM 6:32 PM 7:32 PM Max. Early Avg. Max. Late

Galleria Transfer Point 0 -3 -3 -2 -2 -3 -1 0 -4 2 0 1 -1 -1 -4 -1.2 2

Antelope Creek Dr. at Creekside Ridge Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

Galleria Blvd. at Antelope Creek Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

Roseville Parkway at Taylor Rd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

Sutter Roseville Medical Center 2 1 0 -2 -3 -1 00253420 -30.95

N. Sunrise Ave.at UA Theatre N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

N. Sunrise Ave. at Eureka Rd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

N. Sunrise Ave. at Home Depot N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

N. Sunrise Ave. at Lead Hill Blvd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 4 2 0 -1 0220764431 -12.47

Sierra Gardens Transfer Point N/A 0 -1 -3 -2 1 1 -1 542220 -30.85

Santa Clara Dr. at Placer Village N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

151 N. Sunrise Ave. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

N. Sunrise Ave. at Lead Hill Blvd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

N. Sunrise Ave. at Auto Mall N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

N. Sunrise Ave. at Eureka Rd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

Sutter Roseville Medical Center 48203661886552 04.68

Roseville Parkway at N. Sunrise Ave. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

Roseville Parkway at Taylor Rd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0

Galleria Transfer Point 2 4 0 -2 0241856320 -22.58 TABLE D-4B: Roseville Transit Schedule Adherence -- Route B

Run Start Time Max. Max. Location 6:02 AM 7:02 AM 8:02 AM 9:02 AM 10:02 AM 11:02 AM 12:02 PM 1:02 PM 2:02 PM 3:02 PM 4:02 PM 5:02 PM 6:02 PM 7:02 PM Early Avg. Late

Galleria Transfer Point 0 -2 202023-184641 -22.18

Antelope Creek Dr. at Creekside Ridge Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0.0 0

Galleria Blvd. at Antelope Creek Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0.0 0

Atlantic St. at Center St. 0 -2 2 -3 1032-285741 -31.88

Atlantic St. at Yosemite St. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0.0 0

City Hall Transfer Point 51301-132-174621 -12.37

City Hall Transfer Point N/A -1 2 -3 -1 -1 1 1 -2 52401 -30.65

Atlantic St. at Yosemite St. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0.0 0

Atlantic St. at Center St. 3 0 4 -1 2122-185621 -12.48

Galleria Transfer Point 0 -7 -2 -7 -5 -7 -3 1 -5 2 -2 1 -3 1 -7 -2.6 2 TABLE D-4C: Roseville Transit Schedule Adherence -- Route C

Run Start Time Max. Max. Location 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 Early Avg. Late

Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 0 0 -1 1 0 0 -1 1 N/A -2 4 9 8 1 -2 1.5 9

Santa Clara Dr. at Placer Village 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 0 0 0.0 0

Douglas Blvd. At Mel's Diner N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 0.0 0

Douglas Blvd at TJ Maxx Ctr. -3 0 -3 -1 -2 1 -3 1 N/A -1 4 8 6 -1 -3 0.5 8

Rocky Ridge Dr. past Professional Dr. N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 0.0 0

Rocky Ridge Dr. at Maidu Park -4 0 -4 -3 -2 0 -2 2 N/A -2 N/A 6 N/A -2 -4 -1.0 6

Champion Oaks Dr. at McLaren Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

S. Cirby Way at Nighthawk Circle N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 0.0 0

Cirby Way at Rocky Ridge Dr. -3 0 -2 -2 -2 0 -2 2 N/A -1 N/A 8 N/A -1 -3 -0.3 8

Cirby Way at Parkview Dr. (Oakmont HS) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 0.0 0

Sunrise Ave. at Cirby Way -4 0 -1 -5 0 -4 -1 0 N/A -4 N/A 8 N/A -3 -5 -1.3 8

Sunrise Ave. at IHOP N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 0.0 0

Francis Dr. at Sunrise Ave. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 0.0 0

Santa Clara Dr. at Santa Clara Apt. N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 0.0 0

Sierra Gardens Transfer Point -4 1 1 -2 0 0 0 1 N/A -2 4 7 3 0 -4 0.7 7 TABLE D-4D: Roseville Transit Schedule Adherence -- Route C reverse

Run Start Time Max. Max. Location 6:30 AM 7:30 AM 8:30 AM 9:30 AM 10:30 AM 11:30 AM 12:30 PM 1:30 PM 2:30 PM 3:30 PM 4:30 PM 5:30 PM 6:30 PM Early Avg. Late

Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 0010100-1N/A00613-11.713

Santa Clara Dr. Placer Village N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 0 0.0 0

Santa Clara Dr. Santa Clara Apts N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 0 0.0 0

Francis Dr. at Sunrise Ave. N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 0 0.0 0

Sunrise Ave. at Conroy Ln 10001001N/A3-1614-12.114

720 Sunrise Ave. N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 0 0.0 0

Sunvrise Ave before Madden Ln N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 0 0.0 0

Cirby Way at Sunrise Ave. 0 0 -1 -1 -2 0 -1 0 N/A 0 1 7 12 -2 1.3 12

Cirby Way at Oakmont HS N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 0 0.0 0

1900 S. Cirby at Pepperwood Apt -2 -1 -1 -1 -3 1 -1 -2 N/A -2 3 8 N/A -3 -0.1 8

Champion Oaks Dr. at S. Cirby Way N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 0 0.0 0

Champion Oaks Dr. before McLaren N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 0 0.0 0

Rocky Ridge Dr. at Maidu Park N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 0 0.0 0

Rocky Ridge Dr. at Hackmore Dr. N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 0 0.0 0

Douglas Blvd. At Rocky Ridge Dr. (Target) -2 0 -1 0 -2 0 -1 -4 N/A -2 4 7 6 -4 0.4 7

Douglas Blvd. At Mervyns N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 0 0.0 0

Sierra Gardens Transfer Point -5 -2 -4 -1 -4 0 -4 -5 N/A -2 6 7 2 -5 -1.0 7 TABLE D-4E: Roseville Transit Schedule Adherence -- Route D

Run Start Time Max. Max. Location 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 Early Avg. Late

City Hall Transfer Point -1 0 N/A 10041N/A88000 -11.88

Main St. at Washington Blvd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Main St. at Lomitas Ave. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Main St. before Atkinson St. N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0.0 0

Main St. at St. John's Church -1 0 N/A 0 -1 0 5 0 N/A 96200 -11.79

Foothills Blvd. at Junction Blvd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

McAnally Dr. at Foothills Blvd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

McAnally Dr. before Country Club N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Woodcreek HS/Roseville Aquatics Complex N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.0 1

Herritage Oaks Transfer Point -3 N/A 0 0 -2 -2 5 N/A N/A 7 6 2 N/A -1 -3 1.2 7

Herritage Oaks Transfer Point 0 0 N/A 1 -1 -1 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 -4 0 -4 -0.2 3

Junction Blvd. at Country Club Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Junction Blvd. Before Revere Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Junction Blvd. At Foothills Blvd. N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.0 1

Junction Blvd. At Barbara Dr. 0 0 N/A 0003-1N/A6500-1-11.06

Washington Blvd. at Junction Blvd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Washington Blvd. at Sundance Interiors N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Amtrak Station N/A N/A -1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -1 -1.0 -1

City Hall Transfer Point -1 N/A N/A -1 -4 0 4 -1 N/A 4 5 -1 N/A -2 -4 0.3 5 TABLE D-4F: Rosville Transit Schedule Adherence -- Route D Reverse

Run Start Time Max. Max. Location 6:30 AM 7:30 AM 8:30 AM 9:30 AM 10:30 AM 11:30 AM 12:30 PM 1:30 PM 2:30 PM 3:30 PM 4:30 PM 5:30 PM 6:30 PM Early Avg. Late

City Hall Transfer Point 0210062N/A45600 02.26

Washington Blvd at Main St. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Washington Blvd. At Pleasant St. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Junction Blvd. At Washington Blvd. 0200-152N/A563-1-1-11.76

Junction Blvd at Sawtell Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Foothills Blvd. at Junction Blvd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

McAnally Dr. at Foothills Blvd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

McAnally Dr. before Country Club N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Woodcreek HS/Roseville Aquatics Complex N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Herritage Oaks Transfer Point -2 5 3 0 -3 5 2 N/A N/A 7 2 1 -1 -3 1.7 7

Herritage Oaks Transfer Point 0 N/A N/A 0 -1 3 0 N/A 5 N/A N/A N/A -2 -2 0.7 5

Junction Blvd. at Country Club Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Junction Blvd. at Brickyard Ctr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Main St. at Walgreens -1 2 -1 0021N/A54-20-1-20.75

Main St. at Atkinson St. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Main St. at Weber Park N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Amtrak Station N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

City Hall Transfer Point 0 3 -1 1033N/A85100 -11.98 TABLE D-4G: Roseville Transit Schedule Adherence -- Route E

Run Start Time Max. Max. Location 5:56 AM 6:26 AM 6:56 AM 7:26 AM 7:56 AM 8:26 AM 8:56 AM 9:26 AM 9:56 AM 10:26 AM 10:56 AM 11:26 AM 11:56 AM 12:26 PM 12:56 PM 1:26 PM 1:56 PM 2:26 PM 2:56 PM 3:26 PM 3:56 PM 4:26 PM 4:56 PM 5:26 PM 5:56 PM 6:26 PM 6:56 PM 7:26 PM Early Avg. Late

Sierra Gardens Transer Point N/A 0 -2 0 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 -1 0 0 -3 -2 4 -2 N/A N/A N/A 1245N/A300 -30.35

Santa Clara Dr. at Placer Village N/A -1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -1 -1.0 -1

Douglas Blvd.at Mel's Diner N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Douglas Blvd. At TJ Maxx Ctr N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Douglas Blvd. At Rocky Ridge Town Ctr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Douglas Blvd. At Eureka Rd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Douglas Blvd. At E. Rosville Pkwy N/A N/A -2 5 -1 0 0 1 -1 0 -1 4 1 1 -1 7 0 N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A 4 10 N/A N/A 1 -1 -2 1.4 10

Sierra College Blvd. At Douglas Blvd. N/A -2 -2 5 -1 10101-1514070N/AN/AN/A27311N/A71-1-22.111

Sierra College Blvd. At Indigo Creek Apts. N/A -1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -1 -1.0 -1

Eureka Rd. at Sierra College Blvd. N/A N/A -2 5 -1 00101-1403060N/AN/AN/A17211N/A70-1-22.011

Eureka Rd. at Roseville Pkwy. N/A -2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -2 -2.0 -2

Eureka Rd. at Deer Valley Apts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Douglas Blvd. At Rocky Ridge Dr./Target N/A N/A 081202030505-17-1N/AN/AN/A110212N/A610 -12.912

Douglas Blvd. At Mervyns N/A -1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A -1 -1.0 -1

Sierra Garden Transfer Point N/A N/A -1 7 0 0 -1 1 0 4 -1 5 -1 4 -1 8 -3 N/A N/A N/A 2 13 2 11 N/A 7 0 0 -3 2.5 13 TABLE D-4H: Roseville Transit Schedule Adherence -- Route J

Run Start Time Max. Max. Location 5:46 AM 6:46 AM 7:46 AM 8:46 AM 9:46 AM 10:46 AM 11:46 AM 12:46 PM 1:46 PM 2:46 PM 3:46 PM 4:46 PM 5:46 PM 6:46 PM 7:46 PM Early Avg. Late

Sierra Gardens Transfer Point -1 05100204N/A3128N/AN/A-12.812

Santa Clara Dr. at Placer Village N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Santa Clara Dr. at Santa Clara Apt. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Francis Dr. before Sunrise Ave. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

720 Sunrise Ave. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Sunrise Ave. before Madden Ln. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Cirby Way at Sunrise Ave. N/A 0 12 21142N/AN/A8159N/AN/A05.415

Cirby Way before Cirby Hills Dr. 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 4.5 9

Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 1 0 14 10042N/AN/A816106N/A05.216

Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 1 0 11 1 0 -1 0 4 11 N/A 2 14 6 2 N/A -1 3.9 14

Riverside Ave. at Kaiser Permanente N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 7.0 7

Riverside Ave. at Cirby Way N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Riverside Ave. at Roller King N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Riverside Ave. at Darling Way N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Riverside Ave. at Bonita St. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Vernon St. at Tower Theater N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

City Hall Transfer Point 0 -1 15 0 1 -1 3 6 N/A N/A 6 N/A 8 2 N/A -1 3.5 15

City Hall Transfer Point 0 -1 14 000149N/A5N/A72N/A-13.414

Royer St. at Taylor St. (Main Library) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 7.0 7

Douglas Blvd.at Saugstad Park N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Douglas Blvd.at Donner St. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Douglas Blvd. Before Folsom Rd. N/A -2 14 10004N/AN/A10N/A11N/AN/A-24.214

Douglas Blvd at Bonny Knoll N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 9.0 9

Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 0 -5 11 -2 -2 -2 -1 2 N/A N/A 6 N/A 8 N/A N/A -5 1.5 11 TABLE D-4I: Roseville Transit Schedule Adherence -- Route J Reverse

Run Start Time Max. Max. Location 6:16 AM 7:16 AM 8:16 AM 9:16 AM 10:16 AM 11:16 AM 12:16 PM 1:16 PM 2:16 PM 3:16 PM 4:16 PM 5:16 PM 6:16 PM Early Avg. Late

Sierra Gardens Transfer Point N/A 0 1 -1 0001-2N/A103 -20.33

Santa Clara Dr. at Placer Village N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Douglas Blvd.at Roseville Square N/A -2 0 -1 0001-1N/A-131 -20.03

Douglas Blvd. At Lincoln St. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Taylor St. at Royer St. (Main Library) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

City Hall Transfer Point N/A -1 -1 001021N/A362 -11.26

City Hall Transfer Point N/A -1 0 -1 0 -2 0 -1 -1 N/A 1 8 -1 -2 0.2 8

Vernon St. at Judah St. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Riverside Ave. at Third St. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Riverside Ave. at Darling Way N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Riverside Ave. at Kenroy Ln N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point N/A -2 -1 -2 0 -3 0 4 -3 N/A 0 13 0 -3 0.5 13

Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point N/A -1 3 -3 0 -3 0 0 0 N/A -1 10 0 -3 0.5 10

Riverside Ave. at Kaiser Permanente N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Cirby Way at Kaiser Permanente N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Sunrise Ave. at Cirby Way N/A -2 2 -2 0 -4 0 0 -2 N/A -1 10 -1 -4 0.0 10

Sunrise Ave. at IHOP N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Francis Dr. at Sunrise Ave. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Santa Clara Dr. at Santa Clara Apts. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Sierra Gardens Transfer Point N/A -2 -1 -2 0 -1 2 0 0 N/A 1 18 -1 -2 1.3 18 TABLE D-4J: Roseville Transit Schedule Adherence -- Route K

Run Start Time Max. Max. Location 6:22 AM 7:22 AM 8:22 AM 9:22 AM 10:22 AM 11:22 AM 12:22 PM 1:22 PM 2:22 PM 3:22 PM 4:22 PM 5:22 PM 6:22 PM 7:22 PM Early Avg. Late

Sierra Gardens Transfer Point N/A 1 N/A -1 0 2 2 N/A N/A 6 4 12 6 1 -1 3.3 12

Santa Clara Dr. at Placer Village N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Santa Clara Dr. at Santa Clara Apt. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Francis Dr. before Sunrise Ave. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Sunrise Ave. at Conroy Ln. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

720 Sunrise Ave. 9 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 9.0 9

Sunrise Ave. before Madden Ln. 5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 5.0 5

Cirby Way at Sunrise Ave. 0 3 N/A 1333N/AN/AN/A11N/A73 03.811

Cirby Way before Cirby Hills Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point N/A 371355N/AN/A12131763N/A6.817

Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 0 0 N/A -2 0 -1 -1 N/A N/A 7 9 12 1 0 -2 2.3 12

Riverside Ave. at Kaiser Permanente 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0.0 0

Riverside Ave. at Cirby Way 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0.0 0

Riverside Ave. at Roller King 6 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 6.0 6

Riverside Ave. at Darling Way 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.0 2

Riverside Ave. at Bonita St. (St. Vincent) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Vernon St. at Tower Theater N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0.0 0

City Hall Transfer Point N/A -1 0 -2 2 0 0 N/A N/A 8 14 14 2 -1 -2 3.3 14

City Hall Transfer Point N/A -1 N/A -1 0 -1 -1 N/A N/A 4 10 10 -2 -1 -2 1.7 10

Folsom Rd. at Zola Ave. N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.0 1

210 Estates 3 N/A N/A N/A 0 1 1 N/A N/A N/A 9 N/A 1 N/A 0 2.5 9

Harding Blvd. At Harding Plaza 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0.0 0

Harding Blvd. At DMV 2 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.0 2

Lead Hill Blvd. At Harding Blvd. N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0.0 0

Sierra Garden Transfer Point N/A N/A 0 -1 0 2 2 N/A N/A 5 12 11 0 N/A -1 3.4 12 TABLE 4-DK: Roseville Transit Schedule Adherence -- Route K Reverse

Run Start Time Max. Max. Location 5:52 AM 6:52 AM 7:52 AM 8:52 AM 9:52 AM 10:52 AM 11:52 AM 12:52 PM 1:52 PM 2:52 PM 3:52 PM 4:52 PM 5:52 PM Early Avg. Late

Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 0 0 -1 0 -2 0 0 N/A -1 -1 2 1 0 -2 -0.2 2

Santa Clara Dr. at Placer Village N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

151 N. Sunrise Ave. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lean Hill Blvd. At N. Sunrise Ave. (Comp USA) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Harding Blvd. At DMV N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Harding Blvd. At Harding Plaza N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

211 Estates Dr. 0 -1 -1 0 1 -1 2 N/A 01020 -10.22

Folsom Rd. Zola Ave. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 0.0 0

City Hall Transfer Point 0 N/A 00101N/A-10240 -10.64

City Hall Transfer Point -1 -1 00001N/A0003-1-10.13

Vernon St. at Judah St. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Riverside Ave. at Third St. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Riverside Ave. at Darling Way N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Riverside Ave. at Kenroy Ln N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point -2 -2 -3 2 -2 0 0 N/A 0 -2 3 5 -2 -3 -0.3 5

Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 0 0 -2 0 -2 0 -1 N/A 0 -1 -1 1 0 -2 -0.5 1

Riverside Ave. at Kaiser Permanente N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Cirby Way at Kaiser Permanente N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Sunrise Ave. at Cirby Way -2 -1 -5 0 -2 -1 -1 N/A 1 -1 N/A 6 -2 -5 -0.7 6

Sunrise Ave. at IHOP N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Francis Dr. at Sunrise Ave. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Santa Clara Dr. at Santa Clara Apts. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Sierra Gardens Transfer Point -2 -2 -1 -2 -2 -1 -1 N/A 0 -1 -1 7 -2 -2 -0.7 7 TABLE D-4L: Roseville Transit Schedule Adherence -- Route M

Run Start Time Max. Max. Location 6:30 AM 7:30 AM 8:30 AM 9:30 AM 10:30 AM 11:30 AM 12:30 PM 1:30 PM 2:30 PM 3:30 PM 4:30 PM 5:30 PM 6:30 PM Early Avg. Late

Galleria Transfer Point N/A N/A N/A N/A 1000201N/AN/A00.62 700 Gibson Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pleasant Grove Blvd. At Safeway N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pleasant Grove Blvd. At Hallisey Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pleasant Grove Blvd. At Washington Blvd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pleasant Grove Blvd. At Foothills Blvd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Country Club Dr. at Pleasant Grove Blvd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Country Club dr. McAnally Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Country Club Dr. at Silverado Jr. High N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Junction Blvd. At Country Club Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A 0320302N/AN/A01.43 Woodcreek Oaks Blvd. At Junction Blvd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pleasant Grove Blvd. At Ralphs N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pleasant Grove Blvd. At Sun City Blvd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Timber Creek Lodge N/A N/A N/A N/A -7 0001-30N/AN/A-7-1.3 1 Timber Creek Lodge N/A N/A N/A N/A 0011000N/AN/A00.31 Sun City blvd. At Del Webb Blvd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Sun City Blvd. At Dream Garden Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Woodcreek Oaks Blvd. At Mahany Park N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Woodcreek HS/Roseville Aquatics Center N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Heritage Oaks Transfer Point N/A N/A N/A N/A 0031000N/AN/A00.63 Heritage Oaks Transfer Point N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 -1 1 0 0 -1 0 N/A N/A -1 -0.1 1 Country Oaks Dr. at Junction Blvd N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Country Oaks Dr. at Silverado Jr High N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Country Club Dr. at McAnally Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pleasant Grove Blvd. Before Foothills Blvd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pleasant Grove Blvd. At Foothills Blvd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pleasant Grove Blvd. At Washington Blvd. N/A N/A N/A N/A 3124180N/AN/A02.78 Pleasant Grove Blvd. At Gold Coast Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Roseville Parkway at Pleasant Grove Blvd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 701 Gibson Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Galleria Transfer Point N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 -2 0 -1 0 4 -3 N/A N/A -3 -0.3 4 TABLE D-4M: Roseville Transit Schedule Adherence -- Route R

Run Start Time

Location 7:23 AM 3:53 PM Max. Early Avg. Max. Late Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 1 N/A N/A 1.0 1 Cirby Way at Riverside Ave. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Cirby Way at Vernon St. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Foothills Blvd. At Vineyard Rd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Foothills Blvd. At Junction Blvd. 0 N/A 0 0.0 0 Foothills Blvd. At McAnally Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Foothills Blvd. At NEC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Foothills Blvd. At Misty Wood Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Foothills Blvd. At Albertsons Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Foothills Blvd. At Pasco Scientific N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Foothills Blvd. At Pride Industries 1 N/A N/A 1.0 1 Foothills Blvd. At HP Main Entry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Foothills Blvd. At Misty Wood Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Foothills Blvd. At Pleasant Grove Blvd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Foothills Blvd. At McAnally Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Foothills Blvd. At Junction Blvd. 3 N/A N/A 3.0 3 Foothills Blvd. At Main St. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Foothills Blvd. At Vineyard Rd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Cirby Way at Vernon St. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 0 N/A 0 0.0 0 Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 2 N/A N/A 2.0 2 Cirby Way at Riverside Ave. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Cirby Way at Vernon St. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Foothills Blvd. At Vineyard Rd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Cirby Way at Vernon St. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Foothills Blvd. At Junction Blvd. 2 N/A N/A 2.0 2 Foothills Blvd. At McAnally Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Foothills Blvd. At NEC N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Foothills Blvd. At Misty Wood Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Foothills Blvd. At Albertsons Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Foothills Blvd. At Pasco Scientific N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Foothills Blvd. At Pride Industries 0 N/A 0 0.0 0 Foothills Blvd. At HP Main Entry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Foothills Blvd. At Pleasant Grove Blvd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Foothills Blvd. At McAnally Dr. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Foothills Blvd. At Junction Blvd. 0 N/A 0 0.0 0 Foothills Blvd. At Main St. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Foothills Blvd. At Vineyard Rd. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Cirby Way at Vernon St. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 0 N/A 0 0.0 0 TABLE D-4N: Roseville Transit Schedule Adherence Morning Commuter Route 1 Run Start Time Location 5:26 AM

Cirby past Vernon 32 Orlando and Louis N/A Orlando and Cirby 1 Cirby and Sunrise N/A Maidu Park -1 Rocky Ridge at Kaiser N/A Taylor and I-80 0 Saugstad Park 0 Riverside and 3rd N/A Riverside and Darling N/A Riverside and Kenroy N/A 12th past G 0 12th and I N/A 9th and I 0 9th and K N/A 9th and Capitol N/A 9th and N N/A 9th and P N/A 9th and Q 0 S and 8th N/A 5th and R 0 5th and P N/A N and 6th 0 N and 10th N/A J and 16th 0 J and 18th N/A J and 21st N/A J and 28th N/A Sierra Garden Transfer Point N/A TABLE D-4O: Rosville Transit Schedule Adherence Morning Commuter Route 2 Run Start Time Location 5:45 AM

Mahany Park 1 Galleria at Roseville 1 Taylor and I-80 1 12th past G 1 12th and I N/A 9th and I 0 9th and K N/A 9th and Capitol N/A 9th and N N/A 9th and O N/A 9th and P N/A 9th and Q 2 S and 8th N/A 5th and R 3 5th and P N/A N and 6th 4 N and 10th N/A J and 16th 4 J and 18th N/A J and 21st N/A J and 28th N/A Sierra Gardens Transfer Point N/A TABLE D-4P: Roseville Transit Schedule Adherence Morning Commuter Route 3 Run Start Time Location 6:00 AM

Foothills and Junction 0 Foothills at Brookfields 0 McAnally and Country Club N/A Roseville Aquatic Center N/A Junction and Woodcreek N/A Junction and Country Club N/A Junction and Revere N/A Junction and Barbara N/A Saugstad Park 1 12th past G 3 12th and I N/A 9th and I 3 9th and K N/A 9th and Capitol N/A 9th and N N/A 9th and O N/A 9th and P N/A 9th and Q 6 S and 8th N/A 5th and R 6 5th and P N/A N and 6th 7 N and 10th N/A J and 16th 5 J and 18th N/A J and 21st N/A J and 28th N/A Sierra Gardens Transfer Point 2 TABLE D-4R: Roseville Transit Schedule Adherence Morning Commuter Route 4 Run Start Time Location 5:40 AM

Cirby past Vernon 26 Orlando and Louis N/A Orlando and Cirby -1 Cirby and Sunrise N/A Maidu Park -1 Rocky Ridge at Kaiser N/A Taylor I-80 3 12th past G 2 12th and I N/A 9th and I 2 9th and K N/A 9th and Capitol N/A 9th and N N/A 9th and O N/A 9th and P N/A 9th and Q N/A S and 8th 0 5th and R 7 5th and P N/A N and 6th 8 N and 10th N/A J and 16th 5 J and 18th N/A J and 21st N/A J and 28th N/A Auburn/Whyte Transfer Point 0 TABLE D-4S: Roseville Transit Schedule Adherence Morning Commuter Route 5 Run Start Time Location 6:05 AM

Cirby past Vernon 26 Taylor and I-80 1 Saugstad Park 2 Riverside and 3rd N/A Riverside and Darling 0 Riverside and Kenroy 0 12th past G 9 12th and I N/A 9th and I N/A 9th and K N/A 9th and Capitol N/A 9th and N N/A 9th and O N/A 9th and P N/A 9th and Q N/A S and 8th N/A 5th and R 13 5th and P N/A N and 6th 15 N and 10th N/A J and 16th 12 J and 18th N/A J and 21st N/A J and 28th N/A Sierra Gardens Transfer Point N/A TABLE D-4T: Roseville Transit Schedule Adherence Morning Commuter Route 6 Run Start Time Location 7:10 AM

Taylor and I-80 1 Sierra Garden Transfer Point N/A Saugstad Park 1 12th past G 5 12th and I N/A 9th and I 10 9th and K N/A 9th and Capitol N/A 9th and N N/A 9th and P N/A 9th and Q 11 S and 8th N/A 5th and R 13 5th and P N/A N and 6th 15 N and 10th N/A J and 16th 14 J and 18th N/A J and 21st N/A J and 28th N/A Sierra Garden Transfer Point N/A