EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... I RTC PERFORMANCE ...... I GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES ...... I FARE ANALYSIS...... II TRANSIT SERVICE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ...... II FINANCIAL PLAN...... IV 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ...... 1-1 1.1. PURPOSE OF THE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PROGRAM...... 1-1 1.2. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE...... 1-3 1.3. RELATIONSHIPS WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES ...... 1-6 1.4. REGIONAL PLANNING CONTEXT ...... 1-7 2. FIXED-ROUTE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND PEER REVIEW ...... 2-1 2.1. SERVICE AREA AND NETWORK ...... 2-1 2.2. REVIEW OF INDIVIDUAL RTC RIDE FIXED ROUTES...... 2-1 2.3. PEER AGENCY SURVEY ...... 2-7 2.4. SERVICE DESIGN AND STRUCTURE...... 2-8 2.5. SERVICE EVALUATION AND DECISION MAKING ...... 2-8 2.6. FARE POLICY AND COLLECTION ...... 2-9 2.7. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT...... 2-9 2.8. LESSONS LEARNED ...... 2-9 3. RECOMMENDED GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES ...... 3-1 3.1. GOAL 1: ENHANCE MOBILITY FOR RESIDENTS OF WASHOE COUNTY ...... 3-1 3.2. GOAL 2: DELIVER SERVICE COST-EFFECTIVELY...... 3-2 3.3. GOAL 3: ENSURE THAT SERVICE PROVIDED IS SAFE, RELIABLE, COMFORTABLE AND CONVENIENT ...... 3-2 3.4. GOAL 4: PROMOTE TRANSIT SERVICE AS PART OF A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE IN WASHOE COUNTY ...... 3-4 4. FARE ANALYSIS...... 4-1 4.1. EXISTING AND HISTORIC COMPARISON ...... 4-1 4.2. PEER FARE PRACTICES ...... 4-4 4.3. FARE COLLECTION AND CONTROL ...... 4-6 4.4. FARE RECOMMENDATIONS...... 4-9 4.5. FURTHER STUDY NEEDS ...... 4-11 4.6. PASSENGER SURVEY ...... 4-11 5. TRANSIT SERVICE IMPROVEMENT PLAN ...... 5-1 5.1. DESIGN ELEMENTS AND PRODUCTIVITY STRATEGIES ...... 5-1 5.2. FIXED ROUTE TRANSIT SYSTEM CONCEPTS ...... 5-12 6. RTC ACCESS ...... 6-1 6.1. SERVICE AREA...... 6-1 6.2. ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ...... 6-1 6.3. BENEFIT/COST ANALYSIS ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL ADA SERVICE AREA ...... 6-4 7. TAHOE AREA RAPID TRANSIT AND OTHER SERVICES ...... 7-1 7.1. TART...... 7-1 7.2. TAHOE TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT ...... 7-1 7.3. VANPOOL PROGRAM ...... 7-1

P a g e | 1

8. FINANCIAL PLAN ...... 8-1 8.1. REVENUE...... 8-2 8.2. COSTS ...... 8-2 8.3. FINANCIAL PLAN AND PERFORMANCE ...... 8-2 8.4. FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS...... 8-6

Figures

FIGURE ES-1 – SERVICE HOUR SHIFT ROUTE PRODUCTIVITY RANKING (FEBRUARY 2011) ...... III FIGURE ES-2 – ROUTE CHANGES PLAN ...... VI FIGURE 1 – HISTORIC SALES TAX REVENUES ...... 1-2 FIGURE 2 – RTC ORGANIZATIONAL CHART ...... 1-5 FIGURE 3 – EXISTING SERVICE AREA...... 2-2 FIGURE 4 – AGENCIES ANALYZED FROM THE TELEPHONE SURVEY AND NATIONAL TRANSIT DATABASE...... 2-3 FIGURE 5 – TRANSIT USE: BOARDINGS PER CAPITA IN RELATION TO POPULATION DENSITY...... 2-4 FIGURE 6 – TRANSIT USE: PASSENGER MILES PER CAPITA IN RELATION TO POPULATION DENSITY...... 2-4 FIGURE 7 – TRANSIT PRODUCTIVITY: BOARDINGS PER REVENUE VEHICLE HOUR IN RELATION TO POPULATION DENSITY ...... 2-5 FIGURE 8 - TRANSIT SERVICE EFFICIENCY: AVERAGE SPEED OF REVENUE SERVICE IN RELATION TO POPULATION DENSITY ...... 2-6 FIGURE 9 – COST EFFECTIVENESS: O&M COST PER BOARDING...... 2-6 FIGURE 10 – O&M COST RECOVERY: FAREBOX RATIO ...... 2-7 FIGURE 11 – CASH USAGE VS. PASS USAGE ...... 4-3 FIGURE 12 – CASH TO PASS TYPE RATIOS...... 4-3 FIGURE 13 – SERVICE HOUR SHIFT CONCEPT ROUTE PRODUCTIVITY MAP ...... 5-4 FIGURE 14 – TRANSIT USE POTENTIAL INDEX ...... 5-6 FIGURE 15 – URBAN CORE ...... 5-7 FIGURE 16 – KINGS ROW TRAVEL PATTERNS ...... 5-10 FIGURE 17 – STEAD TRAVEL PATTERNS ...... 5-10 FIGURE 18 – SUN VALLEY TRAVEL PATTERNS ...... 5-10 FIGURE 19 - THE EMPLOYMENT BELT...... 5-11 FIGURE 20 – ROUTING CHANGES PLAN ...... 5-14 FIGURE 21 – ACCESS SERVICE AREA...... 6-2 FIGURE 22 – PRODUCTIVITY OF ACCESS COMPARED TO PEER CITIES ...... 6-3 FIGURE 23 – PRODUCTIVITY OF ACCESS COMPARED TO PEER CITIES ...... 6-4

P a g e | 2

Tables

TABLE ES-1 – ITEMIZED LIST OF PROPOSED ROUTE CHANGES BY LOGICAL GROUP ...... V TABLE 1 – EXISTING FARE STRUCTURE...... 4-2 TABLE 2 – NTD PEER AGENCIES ...... 4-4 TABLE 3 - SELECTED DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS COMPARED TO 20 PEER AGENCIES: RIDERSHIP AND SERVICE...... 4-5 TABLE 4 – SELECTED DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS: COSTS AND REVENUE...... 4-6 TABLE 5 – SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 4-10 TABLE 6 – SUMMARY OF FURTHER STUDY NEEDS ...... 4-11 TABLE 7 – SUMMARY OF ROUTES IN THE ROUTING CHANGES PLAN...... 5-15 TABLE 8 – ITEMIZED LIST OF PROPOSED ROUTING CHANGES PLAN ...... 5-16 TABLE 9 – SUMMARY ATTRIBUTES OF THE ROUTING CHANGES PLAN...... 5-16 TABLE 10 – FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL PROGRAM ...... 8-3 TABLE 11 – FIVE-YEAR OPERATING PLAN...... 8-4 TABLE 12 – FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN SUMMARY...... 8-5

P a g e | 3

Acronyms

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 APC Automatic Passenger Counters BRT Bus Rapid Transit FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration GOBA Gain Over Base Analysis MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization NDOT Nevada Department of Transportation NTD National Transit Database O&M Operations & Maintenance P/RVH Per Revenue Vehicle Hours PTN Primary Transit Network RTC Regional Transportation Commission RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program RTP Regional Transportation Plan SRTP Short Range Transit Program STIP State Transportation Improvement Program TART Tahoe Area Regional Transit TAZ Transportation Analysis Zone TIP Transportation Improvement Program TMRPA Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency TP Transitway Program TTD Tahoe Transportation District TUPI Transit Use Potential Index TVM Ticket Vending Machine UNR University of Nevada, Reno

P a g e | 4

Executive Summary

The Short Range Transit Program (SRTP) is designed to set a course for the delivery of transit services over the next five years. While it indicates specific actions to be taken, annual updates allow for modifications if the needs and opportunities change. For this report, recommendations incorporate operational oversight elements that complement route-specific proposals. These could be the basis of additional improvements and refinements to route designs or the basis for moving inefficient operations into opportunities that are more productive. The intent is to structure service over the next five years so that it can adapt to the rapidly changing transit environment and reflect the needs of a volatile economy.

The program was developed using input from Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) leadership, the public (both riders and non-riders), and research about current operations and how they have worked over the past SRTP period. While the recent positive result of a turnkey service contract has helped to avoid immediate service reductions, potential future revenue shortfalls may still require an assessment of the system productivity. The proposed SRTP builds on the primary objective of enhancing productivity in the overall system to stretch limited future resources. This is consistent with RTC practice to carefully weigh the cost of service against anticipated ridership as a key to managing the system.

RTC Performance The RTC compares very favorably with its peer agencies. In terms of critical effectiveness measures such as boardings per capita or passenger miles per capita, the RTC is high above the average. From an efficiency perspective (e.g., boardings per revenue vehicle hour and farebox ratio), the RTC also does well. An area where there is room for improvement is managing measures such as the general administrative portion of the cost-per-boarding. This indicator reflects the fact that, compared to the service offered, RTC may spend a little more than its peers. Evaluating and addressing issues such as this are the reason for the SRTP: it identifies the course corrections to be made that reflect changing conditions over time.

Goals, Objectives and Policies The policy structure of the transit program at RTC was modified to focus on productivity but also to simplify and concentrate mission-critical activities. One of the key policies in effect at RTC is the “80-20 Rule,” which states that 80 percent of service should be deployed in the most productive manner (productivity) while 20 percent should ensure the greatest number of people have access to the system (coverage). Both productivity and coverage are important, but in times of limited resources, the emphasis may need to be modified. It is proposed that the 80-20 Rule state that “at least” 80 percent of the service will be deployed to be productive removing the upper limit to productivity yet maintaining the option to deliver up to 20 percent coverage service.

P a g e | I

Fare Analysis RTC has a fare structure that resembles its peers. The emphasis has been on encouraging riders to purchase fares off-vehicle to reduce the cost of collecting fares on the bus and reducing boarding times, thus increasing service efficiency. The cost of collecting cash is high compared to other payment forms. Collection and processing represents about 5 percent of the cost of managing collected cash. Over time, the RTC plans to introduce access to off-vehicle fare collection systems, starting with ticket vending machines on the RAPID route in the next year. Currently, passengers are provided options of purchasing multi-ride or multi-day passes at a number of locations to encourage the use of pre-paid media and help reduce reliance on cash fares. The figures indicate the approach is working and needs to be encouraged in the future through rider education and more sophisticated fare collection systems. The fare analysis in this SRTP reviewed a number of fare options from eliminating the base fare (now set at $2) to additional charges for premium service (e.g., RAPID).

Most important regarding fares is the way data are managed. Tracking ridership and revenue is handled in different departments, so an understanding of the way the system performs in terms of passengers served versus revenue collected is not readily discoverable. A recommendation is made to improve the manner in which such data are shared between departments.

Transit Service Improvement Plan The SRTP proposes a series of route revisions to increase productivity, but it also provides for adjustments over time to correct unproductive services and strengthen those that perform well. These proposed changes are built around a series of productivity-enhancing concepts designed to focus service where the best opportunity for increased ridership exists. The proposed changes have been shared with the public who have had generally positive comments. All routing changes will be subject to furthe r evaluation and the requisite public hearing process prior to RTC Board approval and implementation.

In keeping with the 80-20 Rule recommendation, a Service Hour Shift concept (Figure ES-1) is proposed to realign services on an ongoing basis to maximize productivity in the system as a whole. This concept focuses on the Urban Core where a combination of employment and residential densities is most likely to generate ridership for the transit system. Two additional concepts, supporting the Urban Core focus, include the Transitways Program and the Employment Belt approaches. The Transitways Program implements Primary Transit Network improvements that contribute to increased transit patronage. The Transitways Program requires the involvement of the local municipalities to provide for sidewalks, landscaping, bus stop shelters, and other improvements and could be developed as a shared program. The Employment Belt identifies a corridor of high employment that links downtown Reno with employment centers in Sparks and offers a good opportunity to effectively distribute employees to and between major employment centers.

As noted earlier, the RTC’s ability to modify routes and services as information about productivity becomes available is a powerful mechanism for ensuring the best use of the limited resources available. The Service Hour Shift approach ranks routes in the system on the basis of productivity. Low-performing routes can be modified or even eliminated to provide better service where the demand is higher.

P a g e | II

Figure ES-1 – Service Hour Shift Route Productivity Ranking (February 2011)

P a g e | III

In considering possible changes to the RTC route structure, a new series of route changes focused on enhancing productivity that reallocated the available service hours to better serve locations with the highest demand. Route change proposals recommend consolidation of routes to avoid duplication of service and new service in locations where the opportunity suggests an attractive transit market. Some of the notable route changes include the following:

 Extending RAPID from 4th Street Station to the University of Nevada – The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) is one of the most significant attractors in the region and providing a direct linkage to the primary transit corridor in Reno is a logical extension of the current service.  Pyramid Route – A new route on Pyramid Boulevard connecting Centennial Plaza with the Sparks Galleria will afford access that does not currently exist in that growing area.  Other Route Changes – Figure ES-2 shows a number of proposed changes to the routes structure. Each change is subject to the normal required change approval process before implementation.  Individual route changes identified in Figure ES-2 are shown in Table ES-1 and the graphical displays of the changes are presented in Appendix A.

ACCESS Paratransit service does not significantly change under this proposed plan. The fixed-route plan footprint, the primary determinant of the required paratransit service area, remains as it is now with only a minor increase to serve the new Pyramid Route. As a result, barring adjustments to the supplemental area, which are not required, ACCESS services will continue to be delivered as they are in 2011.

Other Services The RTC continues to offer other services to assist the region with better transportation options. Among them are the Tahoe Area Rapid Transit in the Washoe County portion of Lake Tahoe and the vanpool program that that grew from 9 to 18 vehicles in 2010 and eliminated 38,157 single-occupant trips (a 14 percent increase over the previous year). These services should be maintained in the future.

Financial Plan For now, the financial plan for the RTC estimates a revenue shortfall over the five-year period of the SRTP given the current level of service to be offered. With the turnkey operating contract for RIDE, there is stability in costs that allows for better financial planning over the period of the SRTP. However, it is possible that reductions in service and/or administrative expenditures or an increased sales tax allocation could be needed in one or more years between 2012 and 2016. The assumption is that fare revenue will increase an average 3 percent per year.

The budget for RTC services continues to be tight. In the short term, the financial balance for the transit program will continue to be influenced heavily by how local sales tax revenue is allocated. It is also like ly that a fare increase will need to be considered in the near future. No fare adjustment is proposed in this SRTP, but if costs resume their upward trend, an increase in fare revenue may be essential to meet fare recovery policy ratios in order to maintain services.

P a g e | IV

Table ES-1 – Itemized List of Proposed Route Changes by Logical Group

Type Route Option No Change Route 5 Route 15 Route 16 Route 26 Route 54 CONNECT INTERCITY Proposed Regardless RAPID RAPID Extends to UNR of Option Route 2, Pyramid Way New Service on Pyramid Way with shortened Route 2 Provide direct service through downtown and into the Routes 3, 4, & 11 A Employment Belt from Stead (Routes 7 & 17) and West Reno Routes 7 & 17 (Routes 3 & 4). Provide north-south grid service in south central Reno. These B Routes 6, 9, 14, 56/57 options occur in unison: Route 6 moves west of Virginia; Route 9 Options moves to cover Kietzke; Route 12 then covers Neil. Route 19 is eliminated and Route 13 covers the Reno C Routes 13 & 19 International Airport.

D Route 21 Reduced one-way loop; two-way service to employment center.

E Route 99 New route (99) cross town service Further Study Routes 5 & 15 Extend Route 5 into the Employment Belt Route 2 to Vista Extend Route 2 to Baring/Vista Downtown Circulator Use the Sierra Spirit vehicles in a strict downtown circulator Elimination Route 4 Service covered by restructured Route 3 Route 17 Lemmon Valley service retained via a Park & Ride Route 19 Area covered by RAPID and restructured Route 13 Route 18 Replaced by Route 3 extension to employment belt Route 25 Service covered by Route 99 and Route 26 Route 28 Service covered by Routes 54, 7, 3 and 18; lost connection to Centennial Plaza. Sierra Spirit Service covered partially by restructured RAPID.

P a g e | V

Figure ES-2 – Route Changes Plan

P a g e | VI

1. Introduction and Background

1.1. Purpose of the Short Range Transit Program

Public transportation and ridesharing services are an extremely valuable asset to the Reno- Sparks region that can help reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, limit oil consumption, and provide essential mobility. The Short Range Transit Program (SRTP) is a five-year transit operating plan and capital program for public transportation and ridesharing services. The SRTP provides an overview of the status of regional services in the Washoe County service area, and, more importantly, provides a guide for improvements in current services and expansions to new corridors.

The SRTP can assist the RTC Board in making informed decisions regarding public transit resources. Goals and policies from the previous version of this plan have been revisited to determine their impact on the current transit network. While focusing primarily on the fixed- route system, the SRTP also contains information covering regional Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) demand-responsive paratransit service and vanpool service.

This SRTP outlines the programming of transit operations and service over a five-year period (FY 2012–2016) and governs all aspects of the transit system. The purpose of this plan is to promote a comprehensive, coordinated, and continuous planning process for transit service and guide the provision of transit services in the Reno-Sparks area over the next five years.

The program is also used to develop transit capital-programming documents, which are the bases for state- and federal-funding decisions. The plan provides the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) with detailed planning justifications for awarding operating and capital grants to improve the performance of the transit system. This plan was developed through an analysis of existing needs and available services, and provides an evaluation of projected needs and funding availability for the next five years.

1.1.1. What’s New About this SRTP? This SRTP has some significant differences from previous versions of the plan. The RTC decided to take a comprehensive look at its transit system to target areas where efficiency and effectiveness could be increased while reducing costs. The impetus behind this direction is the effect of the economic downturn that many transit providers face in budgeting for services. Due to projected budget shortfalls, the RTC had been faced with challenging decisions regarding transit services for the Reno-Sparks area. The RTC looked at all areas of its services in order to minimize the impacts any service reductions would have on its transit patrons. The need for service reductions has been partially mitigated by new contracts, and service levels will now remain constant through the SRTP period, but the evaluation of the system offers insights into

P a g e | 1-1

how the service can be delivered more productively. Some of the options that were studied were:

 Restructuring the focus of the transit network to higher levels of productivity o Service area adjustments o Reducing route frequencies or  Strategic budgeting  Fare structure

Sales tax revenues, which provide the majority of funding for the operations of the RTC’s transit system, have declined considerably in recent years, and the trend is expected to continue over the next few years (Figure 1). Recognizing the potentially significant impact of such revenue reductions on its operations, the RTC has taken an aggressive approach and looked at innovative solutions to ensure the quality of its transit system is maintained for the Reno-Sparks area. The RTC will continue to work towards its goal of increasing transit’s share of all trips from 2 percent to 6 percent, although the timeframe of this goal may need to be adjusted based on growth projections for the area.

Figure 1 – Historic Sales Tax Revenues

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM SALES TAX REVENUES 10-YEAR HISTORY (FY) $25,000,000

$20,000,000

$15,000,000

$10,000,000

$5,000,000

$- 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Dedicated PT Sales Tax: 1/4% Half of Roads & Transit Sales Tax: 1/16% Additional Allocation of Sales Tax

P a g e | 1-2

1.2. Organizational Structure

1.2.1. Brief History The State Legislature created the RTC in 1979, combining the previous statutory authority of the Regional Street and Highway Commission, the Regional Transit Commission and the Washoe County Area Transportation Study Policy Committee. The responsibilities of the RTC include design and construction of major streets and highways, and administration of public transportation systems serving Washoe County. In its capacity as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the RTC prepares short- and long-range transportation plans for the region, programs highway and public transportation improvements through the Transportation Improvement Program process, and develops and carries out the overall planning program.

1.2.2. RTC RIDE RTC RIDE, as Citifare, began operating public transit services on September 18, 1978. Passage of a 0.25 percent sales tax referendum by the voters of Washoe County on September 14, 1982, provided the financial resources necessary to expand fixed-route and paratransit service. As federal transit funding has steadily declined over the past several years, sales tax has been critical to continued improvement in public transportation. As part of a larger transportation- funding package, transit funding was increased by the adoption of an additional 0.0625 percent sales tax effective July 1, 2003. A private contractor, MV, currently operates RTC RIDE. The RTC owns all RTC RIDE facilities and equipment. RTC RIDE operates 26 bus routes (including INTERCITY and Sierra Spirit) that provide service throughout the region that is largely built around three transfer centers: 4th Street Station in downtown Reno, Centennial Plaza in downtown Sparks, and Meadowood Mall in South Reno.

In FY 2010, RTC RIDE operated 58 peak-hour vehicles and carried 7.5 million passenger trips. On an average weekday, RTC RIDE provided 23,400 passenger trips. Approximately 31 percent of these trips were for senior citizens or people with disabilities. More than half the trips on RTC RIDE are people going to or from work. According to 2000 Census data and the RTC forecasting tool, RTC RIDE carried approximately 3.5 percent of the total work trips in the region. This percentage is even higher to downtown Reno and Sparks, where transfer centers (4th Street Station and Centennial Plaza) create an effective and convenient service for hotel/casino employees and visitors.

1.2.3. RTC ACCESS Section 223 of the ADA requires that public entities operating non-commuter fixed-route transportation services also provide complementary paratransit service. Any individual who resides within ¾ mile from a fixed route and meets certain eligibility requirements may use this service.

ACCESS is the RTC’s demand response paratransit service designed to serve people whose disabilities prevent them from using the traditional fixed-route transit independently, some or

P a g e | 1-3

all of the time. RTC ACCESS is door-to-door, prescheduled transportation that operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

RTC ACCESS Eligibility All applicants for RTC ACCESS eligibility must meet the federal requirements forADA paratransit eligibility. Eligible individuals must have one or more of the following:

 Disabilities that prevent them from independently getting to/from a bus stop or through major transfer points.  Disabilities that prevent them from independently boarding, riding, and exiting a fixed route bus.  Disabilities that prevent them from independently recognizing the correct bus stops and key landmarks.

The RTC uses a third-party independent contractor to perform eligibility assessments for riders. Potential riders are required to fill out the application and go through an interview process to determine the customer’s mobility.

1.2.4. RTC Vanpool In July 2005, the RTC added a new component to the trip-reduction program with the introduction of vanpooling. The RTC considered vanpools for many years because of their success elsewhere in reducing traffic congestion and pollution and augmenting traditional transit services. To operate the vanpool program, the RTC partnered with one of the nation’s leading vanpool companies, VPSI Inc. Based in California, VPSI has been leasing vans for over 30 years. Today, VPSI maintains a fleet of more than 5,000 vans distributed across the U.S. and in many other countries. VPSI provides the vans and covers insurance and maintenance costs. Each vanpool maintains a separate agreement with VPSI as well as the RTC.

Vanpool participants split the van’s lease and gas expenses. To encourage participation in the program, the RTC provides vanpool participants with a subsidy. Individual vanpools are funded based on a combination of the RTC subsidy, participant payments, and, in some cases, an employer subsidy. Depending on how the vanpool is structured and funded, employers and employees can be eligible for a pretax benefit.

1.2.5. Tahoe Area Regional Transit In the spring of 1985, the RTC signed an Interlocal Agreement with Placer County, California, to fund the extension of the Tahoe Area Regional Transit (TART) system into the Incline Village/Crystal Bay area. The service began on May 15, 1985.

1.2.6. The Decision Making Process The RTC board uses a broad-based decision-making process involving specialized advisory committees (detailed below), the public, and RTC staff. This structure is used to ensure a diverse cross-section of the community is represented when transportation-planning determinations

P a g e | 1-4

are made. The RTC board uses this process to guide the policies and goals for the future of transportation in Washoe County. Figure 2 details the organization of this process.

Figure 2 – RTC Organizational Chart

1.2.7. The RTC Board of Commissioners The RTC is a cooperative regional board composed of five representatives appointed from three government jurisdictions.

1.2.8. Citizens Advisory Committee On November 19, 2010, the Citizens Advisory Committee and the Public Transportation Advisory Committee merged. Committee membership will initially be composed of current members of these committees. As terms expire, members will not be reappointed until the committee is at 15 members. The committee provides input to the RTC on policy issues relative to public transportation, the regional street and highway system, and multimodal transportation planning.

1.2.9. Technical Advisory Committee The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) provides input on transportation and air quality planning issues. This committee reviews and comments on plans/projects/issues from a technical standpoint. The TAC advises and assists the RTC with methods and procedures and recommends technical standards. The membership consists of 12 members (11 voting members and 1 non-voting/ex officio member) and is composed of representatives from the local community development and public works departments, as well as representatives from the Washoe County District Health Department–Air Quality Management Division, the Reno Tahoe Airport Authority, the Nevada Department of Transportation District II office and Headquarters,

P a g e | 1-5

the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (ex officio, non-voting).

1.2.10. Public Involvement The RTC recognizes the importance of including members of the public in the planning process. Many decisions regarding the transit system are made with regard to comments received from the public—many of whom use the transit system on a regular basis. A public participation plan (see Appendix B) developed as part of this SRTP was designed to engage the public in the planning of future transit services. Innovative tools were used such as websites and social media (e.g., Twitter, Facebook), to increase the exposure of the SRTP update and simplify the public’s ability to participate in the process.

In addition to social media, three public meetings were held to offer the public an opportunity to review and comment on the study process and results. Each meeting was held as a public open house where information was displayed and staffed to answer questions from the public. (Meeting results are provided in Appendix B.) The following is a brief overview regarding each public meeting:

 Public Meeting #1, September 16, 2010 (Centennial Plaza) – This was an introductory meeting for the SRTP update. Interactive displays were presented to engage and survey the public with the types of challenges the RTC is facing to provide transit in the future. The project website was displayed as well as a live social media (via Twitter and Facebook) feed during the meeting.  Public Meeting #2, December 15, 2010 (4th Street Station) – This meeting presented findings from a detailed analysis of the existing transit system. Initial alternative recommendations were also displayed and survey results from public meeting #1 were available for review.  Public Meeting #3 – The third public outreach session took place on October 6, 2011 and focused on eliciting public comments on the results and proposed changes to the Routing Changes Plan presented in the Chapter 5, Transit Service Development Plan, of this report. Over 750 survey were completed which is the best response ever obtained for a transit survey. The results were consistent in supporting the changes proposed, although more study will be required prior to bringing them to the RTC Board for consideration.

1.3. Relationships with Other Governmental Agencies

Transportation planning in Washoe County is performed by the RTC in cooperation with state and local planning agencies. One-way planning activities are coordinated through the RTC’s TAC. This committee meets monthly and consists of representatives from Washoe County, City of Reno, City of Sparks, the Nevada Department of Transportation, FHWA, Airport Authority of Washoe County, Washoe County District Health Department–Air Quality Management Division, and Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency. The following is a brief description of the various agencies involved in the transportation planning process:

P a g e | 1-6

1.3.1. Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency The Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency (TMRPA) was created by state legislation in 1989. The Regional Planning Governing Board is composed of elected officials from Reno, Sparks, and Washoe County. The TMRPA is charged with the development of a comprehensive plan for Washoe County, including land use and transportation components. Local master plans, sub-area plans and capital facility plans are required to be brought into conformance with this plan. In addition, the TMRPA has the overall responsibility for air quality planning in the region, and provides staff support to the Air Quality Task Force.

1.3.2. Washoe County District Health Department The Washoe County District Health Department (WCDHD) has statutory responsibility for developing and implementing air quality plans, programs and regulations in Washoe County. The RTC coordinates its planning process with the WCDHD to ensure that its assumptions, forecasts, policies, and projects are consistent with regional air quality plans and objectives.

1.3.3. Nevada Department of Transportation The Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) is responsible for planning, programming, construction and maintenance activities involving federal and state gas tax funding. Planning and programming of these projects are coordinated with the RTC through the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) process. NDOT also provides funds to the RTC for transportation planning and transit capital and provides technical data and analysis to support the regional transportation planning process. Coordination with NDOT is critical to the development of the State TIP (STIP). NDOT also oversees the provisions of the federal Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Act: A Legacy for Users, which sets forth federal regulations guiding the regional and state transportation planning process.

1.3.4. Placer County, California In 1985, the RTC entered into a joint agreement with Placer County, California, to extend the TART service to Incline Village, which is located within Washoe County. The RTC and Placer County meet as needed to coordinate the service.

1.3.5. Carson City Regional Transportation Commission Service between Reno and Carson City began in August 2000 through an agreement between NDOT, Carson City, and Washoe County RTC. Once Carson City achieved MPO status, a new agreement was developed between Carson City Regional Transportation Commission and Washoe RTC with the most recent update effective July 2009.

1.4. Regional Planning Context

The RTC is the designated MPO for the Reno-Sparks urbanized area. In this capacity, the RTC is responsible for conducting and maintaining a “cooperative, continuous and comprehensive transportation planning process that results in plans and programs consistent with the comprehensively planned development of the urbanized area.” In addition, the urban

P a g e | 1-7

transportation planning process must include the development of “a transportation plan describing policies, strategies, and facilities or changes in the facilities proposed.” Any transit projects requiring the use of federal funds must be consistent with this plan. In response to these federal requirements, the RTC develops various planning documents that establish funding priorities for transportation programs. Among the documents prepared by the RTC are the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Regional TIP (RTIP). The SRTP is developed within the framework of these and other regional planning documents. All these documents share a common vision for the future in which the use of transit accounts for a greater share of all trips. The RTP and RTIP are briefly discussed below.

1.4.1. 2030 Regional Transportation Plan As the designated MPO for Washoe County, the RTC is responsible for developing a transportation plan, which describes the policies, strategies, and facilities or changes in the facilities proposed. The RTP provides the Reno-Sparks metropolitan area with a plan that is designed to address the region’s growth challenges such as population growth, traffic congestion and air quality. The RTP interfaces between land use and transportation, establishes regional policies to guide the development of the transportation system, and provides a method for financing the necessary transportation infrastructure. The most recent RTP has a planning horizon of 2030.

1.4.2. Public Transportation Element The Public Transportation Element of the RTP provides policy guidance for the development of public transportation systems and facilities serving Washoe County. In addition, the it addresses a broad range of transportation services including RTC RIDE, TART, RTC ACCESS, and privately operated intercity charter, taxi, and shuttle services. The RTP seeks to triple the current non- auto modal share from 2 percent to about 6 percent. Several additional services would be provided, including:  Additional primary service in corridors that cannot be identified now, because they depend on future transit-oriented land use and roadway design decisions.  Commuter express service into Reno from Stead, and North Sparks and outward to the industrial areas along Glendale/Greg and South Meadows, as well as possibly areas outside Washoe County, such as the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center area in Storey County.  Intercity services to both the north and south shores of Lake Tahoe, and to Carson City. (This RTP costs these services only to the edge of Washoe County.)  Local coverage services.  ADA services.

1.4.3. Regional Transportation Improvement Program The RTIP is a five-year plan of major street and highway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements for Washoe County. It includes a summary of projects by fiscal year and shows the agency responsible for implementing the project, identifying the funding source, and other

P a g e | 1-8

related information. The RTIP represents a prioritized program directed at meeting Washoe County’s growing transportation needs, while improving the region’s air quality, transportation efficiency, safety, and mobility. The FTA and FHWA require the RTC to adopt a TIP annually that identifies federally funded transportation projects. Federal monies cannot be expended on projects that are not contained in an approved RTIP. Only projects included in the first year of the TIP (annual element) are eligible for federal funding. Public transportation improvements identified in the SRTP are also contained in the TIP.

P a g e | 1-9

2. Fixed-Route System Performance and Peer Review

A study of the existing conditions of the RTC fixed-route transit system was conducted to develop a baseline understanding of transit operations in the Reno-Sparks area, as well as review other systems to identify possible areas for improvement. Existing RTC plans, services and performance were documented and analyzed. A 152-system survey of the National Transit Database (NTD) was conducted as was an in-depth peer city review with a select sample of transit agencies in similar communities.

2.1. Service Area and Network

The RTC operates 26 fixed-routes in the Reno-Sparks metropolitan area as well as areas of unincorporated Washoe County. Figure 3 illustrates service areas for RTC fixed-route operations (not including RTC INTERCITY). Using a 0.25-mile buffer of the 26 fixed-routes, the RTC operates transit service over a 50-square-mile service area; using a 0.75-mile buffer around the same routes to address the ADA paratransit service requirement results in a 90-square-mile service area.

In general, the RTC fixed-route system operates as a “hub-and-spoke” transit system. The greatest benefit of a radial system design is the ability to cover a large area with a small number of service hours, but this comes at the expense of directness of service for large portions of ridership desiring destinations away from the system’s hub (usually a city’s central business district). To limit the inconvenience of the radial trip for those connecting to other buses, “pulse” operation is used to reduce wait times between buses and minimize the overall travel time. With two separate central business districts in Reno and Sparks, RTC operates a high- frequency connector between the two cities with less frequent feeder service increasing the coverage area except where demand warrants more frequent service.

2.2. Review of Individual RTC RIDE Fixed Routes

Of the 26 fixed routes operated by the RTC, 17 routes operate out of the RTC 4th Street Station transfer hub, 7 routes operate out of the RTC Centennial Plaza transfer hub, and 7 routes operate out of the RTC Meadowood Mall hub. In addition, 6 of these routes provide service that links two hubs together. In total, all 26 fixed-routes are anchored by at least one transfer hub. (Appendix D lists a summary of service headways by route, day-type and time-of-day.) The RTC’s minimum frequency policy results in 60-minute maximum headways throughout the system. The lowest headway, 10 minutes, occurs on the RTC RAPID service during peak deployment.

P a g e | 2-1

Figure 3 – Existing Service Area

P a g e | 2-2

2.2.1. National Transit Database How does the RTC fixed-route system compare with a broad sample of other systems in the U.S.? That question is explored in the analysis reported here, in which various aspects of the system, its setting, services, ridership, fare revenue, and operations and maintenance (O&M) cost are examined. For this purpose, the most recent available year’s NTD files have been used. The NTD is an annual compilation of required reports to the FTA, for most transit agencies in the U.S. that receive federal transit funds. The reporting format and content are prescribed by the FTA; as a result, the data is consistent across all the transit properties that submit reports, and for a fixed fiscal year ending June 30th. At the present time, FY 2010 reports have not yet been submitted to the NTD, and FY 2009 reports have been submitted but have not been fully checked, compiled, and published. This being the case, the analysis discussed here has been developed from the FY 2008 NTD. Figure 4 exhibits geographically the peer agencies that were analyzed for this exercise.

Figure 4 – Agencies Analyzed from the Telephone Survey and National Transit Database

P a g e | 2-3

What follows is a discussion of five aspects of RTC fixed-route transit system performance compared with NTD information for the 152 transit systems in the selected sample. Figure 5 and Figure 6 illustrate the two comparisons—annual boardings per capita versus population density, and annual passenger miles per capita versus population density. The boardings plot exhibits the expected rising trip rate as population density increases; the passenger miles plot does not, because increasing density yields shorter person-trips. In both cases, the RTC fixed-route transit services are shown to produce higher-than-average transit use. Figure 5 – Transit Use: Boardings per Capita in relation to Population Density

15 NTD Sample 10 RTC RIDE

5 Annual Boardings Boardings Annual Capita per 0 - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

Population Density (Persons per Square Mile)

Figure 6 – Transit Use: Passenger Miles per Capita in relation to Population Density

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 NTD Sample 30 RTC RIDE 20 10 0

- 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Annual PassengerAnnual Miles perCapita Population Density (Persons per Square Mile)

P a g e | 2-4

2.2.2. Productivity Given the superior performance of RTC RIDE compared with the NTD sample, the question of ridership in relation to service is addressed by boardings per revenue hour of service (revenue vehicle hours, or P/RVH). This is a standard productivity measure. In Figure 7, the NTD sample exhibits a slight rise in the productivity measure as population density increases, and RTC RIDE is clearly well above average.

Figure 7 – Transit Productivity: Boardings per Revenue Vehicle Hour in relation to Population Density

35 30 25 20

Hour 15 NTD Sample 10 RTC RIDE 5

Boardings Boardings per Revenue Vehicle 0 - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

Population Density (Persons per Square Mile)

2.2.3. Service Efficiency Indicators of service efficiency compare average speed with population density. In Figure 8, the NTD sample is shown to decline in average speed as population density rises. The average speed of RTC RIDE service is a little below average. This may be the result of RTC RIDE’s extensive use of pulsed service at its transit centers; revenue service hours include layover and recovery time, which tends to be higher in pulsed systems than in systems that do not coordinate bus arrival and departure times at locations where routes meet.

P a g e | 2-5

Figure 8 - Transit Service Efficiency: Average Speed of Revenue Service in relation to Population Density

16 15 14 13 12 11 NTD Sample RTC RIDE (Miles per(Miles Hour) 10 9

Average RevenueAverage Service Speed 8 - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

Population Density (Persons per Square Mile)

2.2.4. Cost Effectiveness In Figure 9, the cost per passenger boarding is plotted against service area population density. The graphic shows that RTC RIDE has lower O&M cost per boarding than is typical within the sampled transit systems.

Figure 9 – Cost Effectiveness: O&M Cost per Boarding

$5.00

$4.00

$3.00

$2.00 NTD Sample RTC RIDE

$1.00 Total O&M O&M Total Cost Boarding per $0.00 - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

Population Density (Persons per Square Mile)

2.2.5. O&M Cost Recovery The final area of performance in this analysis is cost recovery. The metric for evaluation of the level of O&M cost recovery from fares is “farebox ratio”, which is the percentage of O&M cost met by fare revenues. This is directly related to the average fare paid (per boarding), and this is the basis against which farebox ratio has been compared in Figure 10. RTC RIDE is shown to be

P a g e | 2-6

better than average in farebox ratio, with an average fare that is among higher levels within the NTD sample, but a farebox ratio better than systems having the same average fare per boarding.

Figure 10 – O&M Cost Recovery: Farebox Ratio

30%

25%

20%

15% NTD Sample 10% Farebox Ratio RTC RIDE 5%

0% $0.00 $0.20 $0.40 $0.60 $0.80 $1.00 $1.20

Average Fare per Boarding

2.3. Peer Agency Survey

This peer analysis was tailored to learn how peers’ networks are designed and how decisions regarding service are made. Five topics were discussed: service structure and design, service evaluation and decision making, fare policy and collection, public involvement, and lessons learned.

A total of 8 agencies were interviewed as part of this analysis:  Spokane Transit Authority – Spokane, WA  City of Albuquerque Transit Department – Albuquerque, NM  Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada – Las Vegas, NV  Central Arkansas Transit Authority – Little Rock, AR  Golden Empire Transit District – Bakersfield, CA  Santa Cruz Metro – Santa Cruz, CA  Utah Transit Authority – Salt Lake City, UT  Lane Transit District – Eugene, OR

Pertinent summary findings of the peer analysis are discussed in the following sections.

P a g e | 2-7

2.4. Service Design and Structure

All agencies interviewed have cooperative programs with employers and nearby universities, whereby monthly passes are sold at a discounted rate. Spokane Transit Authority determines the price of this pass for universities by using yearly ridership data and charging on a per-trip basis. Golden Empire Transit District offers a special monthly pass than can be used by employees of a nearby IKEA service center to ride shuttles to work.

The popularity of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and streetcar services is growing among agencies of this size. All agencies are hoping to implement or expand BRT or streetcar services in the near future.

Non-traditional and ADA services are provided only where necessary. All agencies noted that ADA service is just what is required by law. Salt Lake City offers special public-school services for students outside school districts, and Spokane provides special-use vans for large nursing homes. Eugene’s Lane Transit District serves as a pass-through for federal funds to operate a Ride Source program for the disabled. Monterey is in the process of implementing route- deviated service to a senior center. Outside those examples, special programs are not offered.

2.5. Service Evaluation and Decision Making

All agencies provide more than 90 percent of services in-house. Occasional paratransit rides are covered by private operators when necessary. Three agencies used to contract for some services (usually paratransit), but those functions were brought in-house for cost effectiveness. Monterey is an anomaly, contracting out all its paratransit services.

Traditional measures of the success or failure of routes RTC performs very well compared are used: cost per passenger, passengers per hour, and to its peers across the country. In on-time performance. Of note is Spokane’s most categories, RTC is at the high comprehensive plan, which dictates the need to have end of the performance scale. This suggests changes need to be made in productive route structures to keep from pushing out the context of maintaining and poorly planned services. Spokane considers three looking toward long-term growth in detailed measures when determining the success of performance as much as improving routes: ridership, comparable energy consumption, it. and farebox recovery. By ensuring that each route meets a specific level of competency in each of these three areas, Spokane Transit Authority can cut or change only those routes with subpar overall potential.

Most agencies use geographic equity to determine where to distribute services. Exceptions are Little Rock, which adds services where cities are willing to provide more funding, and Spokane,

P a g e | 2-8

which strives to serve more riders in dense areas. Eugene aims for a split of 75–80 percent high- productivity service and 20–25 percent social-service routes.

Decisions regarding capital improvements are made with no consistency among agencies. Some allow MPOs to have heavy influence, while others try to minimize effects on ridership or have no policies at all.

2.6. Fare Policy and Collection

All agencies offer on-board fare collection with flat fares. Considerations of off-board fare collection and barrier-free boarding have often been halted due to the cost of implementing those features. Only Salt Lake City offers smartcards. Monterey has the highest farebox recovery rate (28.5 percent) due to fares that can reach $10.

2.7. Public Involvement

Public outreach is an integral part of making service changes. Most agencies have a committee established to ease this process, and records are kept of the public comments made. A notable example is Santa Cruz, which held 18 public hearings, recorded TV loops, and printed outreach materials to disseminate information about a recent 10 percent service reduction. This amount of outreach is greater than most agencies strive for because a high percentage of Santa Cruz’s population actively provides comments about the transit system.

2.8. Lessons Learned

All agencies have made some changes due to the current economic climate. This usually includes service reductions and increased fares. Santa Cruz aimed to make efficient changes, such as consolidation of routes. Eugene chose to make service cuts that affected non-transit- dependent populations, among other cost-cutting measures. Monterey has been able to add service despite the economic climate due to partnerships with local military installations.

Most agencies serve specialized passenger markets, such as universities, employment centers, or dense residential areas. Efforts are made to add service for these populations.

P a g e | 2-9

3. Recommended Goals, Objectives and Policies

Goals and objectives are what a community or an agency hopes to accomplish—where the agency, in this case the RTC, would like to be in the future. They provide direction for agency decisions. The goal structure of the agency defines the tenets of the operation and shapes the priorities for how service will be delivered and managed. In general, for the RTC, the intent is to maximize the types and quality of services offered to as many people as cost-effectively as possible. This section describes the basis for achieving that condition.

For purposes of the SRTP, the following definitions will apply:

 Goal: A “goal” is the end toward which the overall effort is directed; it is timeless, general, and conceptual. The intent of the overall goals is to provide a framework for subsequent objectives and policies.  Objective: An “objective” provides clear, concise guidance to obtaining the goal. Objectives are successive levels of achievement in moving toward a goal. They are results to be achieved by a stated point in time. Individual objectives are capable of being quantified and realistically attained.  Policy: A “policy” is a direction statement that guides present and future decisions on specific actions. Policies should support the attainment of objectives.

3.1. Goal 1: Enhance mobility for residents of Washoe County

Objective 1A: Provide efficient fixed route transit service to all areas that meet population and/or employment density targets.

Policy 1A-1: RTC shall identify and evaluate changes in population and employment densities in Washoe County; service should be extended to residential areas with a density of at least 7 dwelling units per gross acre and employment areas with a density of 200 employees per acre or more over a minimum of 5 acres if feasible and cost-effective. The SRTP, consistent with the principles of the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan, will guide specific proposals and will be based on a detailed analysis of potential ridership, cost and equipment availability.

Policy 1A-2: Fixed-routes should be designed as practicable to be comparable to an automobile trip in distance and time. Whenever possible, routes shall use the same streets for both directions unless specifically needed for operational reasons. Route deviations should not exceed 4 minutes per round trip and should achieve at least five passengers per round trip (75 P/RVH).

Policy 1A-3: Provide transit service within the area served by the Primary Transit Network (PTN) that has competitive travel times with a car trip using express or limited stop bus service, favorable stop spacing, signal preemption and other techniques, as appropriate.

P a g e | 3-1

Policy 1A-4: Routes schedules shall be designed to limit wait times for transfers between buses to no longer than 15 minutes.

Objective 1B: Improve accessibility to major health care, recreation, education, employment, cultural and social services facilities. Policy 1B-1: Encourage participation by employers in transit subsidy programs in exchange for improved access to transit on the PTN.

Policy 1B-2: Locate transit route within 1/4 mile of major health, recreational, education, employment, cultural and social services facilities.

Objective 1C: Provide efficient Paratransit service comparable to fixed-route

Policy 1C-1: Review and adjust RTC ACCESS supplemental service area as fixed-route service changes.

Policy 1C-2: Add service as needed to avoid deterioration of transit travel time to/from Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) with a high proportion of elderly and disabled population.

3.2. Goal 2: Deliver Service Cost-Effectively

Objective 2A: Set fares to ensure a return from the farebox comparable to peer transit agencies.

Policy 2A-1: RTC will consider fare adjustments for fixed-route services at least annually to maintain farebox return at the 80th percentile level of a set of peer transit agencies selected by RTC based on results presented in the previous year’s NTD.

Policy 2A-2: Allocate at least 80 percent of service to routes that maximize productivity.

Policy 2A-3: The RTC will prioritize funding for those services and facilities that improve the effectiveness and productivity of transit services and conform to performance standards and route design policies.

Policy 2A-4: Where feasible, parallel routes (with no barriers to walking) should be at least one-mile apart to avoid duplicating service.

3.3. Goal 3: Ensure that service provided is safe, reliable, comfortable and convenient

Objective 3A: RTC will make transit information available to all Washoe County residents through programs to foster support and increase participation. Policy 3A-1: The RTC shall increase awareness of public transportation as well as how to use it through expanded education and ongoing public outreach campaign (electronic and otherwise). Schedule information will be presented in an easy to understand format.

P a g e | 3-2

Policy 3A-2: RTC will document and promote the benefits of the transit system for both users and non-users (mobility, quality of life, environmental, etc.);

Objective 3B: RTC will provide safe and secure transit service. Policy 3B-1: The RTC shall pursue specific programs to enhance the safety of public transportation and minimize the number of avoidable accidents involving transit vehicles.

Policy 3B-2: The RTC shall work with local, state, national, and private law enforcement agencies to eliminate security incidents in the RTC public transportation system.

Policy 3B-3: The RTC will inspect equipment and facilities biweekly based on industry-defined condition performance standards. Deficiencies shall be corrected immediately and before placing equipment and facilities into service.

Policy 3B-4: Maintain visible level of system-wide security presence and surveillance coverage throughout the operating periods of the system.

Objective 3C: Fleet shall remain in good condition at all times to ensure a positive customer experience

Policy 3C-1: Fleet life cycle for all transit revenue vehicles should be maintained within industry standard lifespan

Policy 3C-2: Average age of buses will be assigned to routes so that the average age of the buses serving any geographic area does not vary from the system average by more than 40 percent.

Objective 3D: RTC will support and strengthen intermodal linkages

Policy 3D-1: RTC RIDE, RTC ACCESS and other public transportation services will be coordinated with the development of the region-wide transportation system, promoting intermodal connections, to facilitate safe, efficient and convenient travel for all travel modes, including bicycles and pedestrians.

Policy 3D-2: Allow bicycles on transit under prescribed vehicle conditions such as available bicycle rack positions or favorable vehicle loads.

Policy 3D-3: RTC will coordinate with local municipalities to ensure pedestrian access to all bus stops and transit centers is safe and inviting.

Objective 3E: RTC will keep the community informed of changes in a timely and open fashion

Policy 3E-1: Annual SRTP updates will be developed stating specific proposals for service improvements, marketing efforts, and planning justifications as part of the RTC's annual budget process. New service will meet route standards within a predetermined target date following implementation.

P a g e | 3-3

Policy 3E-2: As stated in Management Policy P-28 “Public Involvement for Modifications to Transit Service or Fares”, the RTC will hold a formal public hearing for any major modification to service defined as a reduction or increase of 10 percent or more of system-wide service hours or as a modification to any existing route that affects 25 percent or more of the service hours or 25 percent or more of the route’s ridership.

Policy 3E-3: The date selected for service changes should coincide with driver bids to efficiently transition between changes.

Policy 3E-4: All documents related to notification of changes in schedule and operation of RTC services shall be produced in English and Spanish.

3.4. Goal 4: Promote transit service as part of a sustainable future in Washoe County

Objective 4A: Develop and strengthen partnerships to achieve regional transit mode splits will be 3 percent by 2015, 4 percent by 2020 and 6 percent by 2030

Policy 4A-1: RTC will work with local government agencies, private developers and property owners to ensure properly located, designed and constructed bus stops are provided for existing, new and anticipated service with appropriate passenger amenities.

Policy 4A-2: RTC shall work in cooperation with local governments to develop street standards that facilitate transit service by recognizing future right-of way and operational needs, e.g., provisions for bus turnouts, cross-street spacing to optimize transit stops, lane widths that can safely accommodate transit vehicles, etc.

Policy 4A-3: RTC will work with local government agencies, private developers and property owners to ensure that park-and-ride and micro park-and-ride facilities, both shared-use and exclusive-use, supporting public transportation are developed as conditions of approval, where appropriate.

Policy 4A-4: Promote opportunities for express service to major generators through agreements with local communities and private business.

Policy 4A-5: RTC shall work in cooperation with local and state governments to identify future transit corridors, types of services to encourage supporting land uses, pedestrian facilities and right-of-way for exclusive transit use in limited areas.

Policy 4A-6: RTC shall work with local jurisdictions and the private sector to provide incentives for landowners to develop greater densities in transit corridors in accordance with their master plans and for major employers to provide facilities and programs that support transit.

Policy 4A-7: RTC will work with local governments to support transit oriented/friendly development (density, design and diversity of land uses) through their master plan policies and development review process.

P a g e | 3-4

Objective 4B: Reduce the carbon footprint of RTC transit services by 25 percent by 2030 Policy 4B-1: As vehicles are replaced, RTC will purchase the lowest-emission vehicles economically available for RTC RIDE and RTC ACCESS.

Policy 4B-2: Increases in passengers P/RVH will be tracked annually as part of determining the contribution to a reduced carbon footprint as well as an increase in mode split

Policy 4B-3: As transit services expand, RTC will implement such expansions with no net increase in carbon footprint.

P a g e | 3-5

4. Fare Analysis

Transit fares are fundamental to the financial condition of a transit agency. For the RTC, this revenue source provides just over one-quarter of operating costs. By comparison, and in a sample of 150 comparable agencies, the fares covered less than 20 percent of operating costs. Transit fares also play a significant role in the composition of passenger demand, representing a major part of the interaction between passengers and the agency; the passenger pays the transit agency a fare and the transit agency provides the passenger a transportation benefit.

When designing a fare structure and policy for any transit system, the goals of the fare structure should be defined to be consistent with the agency’s broader goals. Some basic objectives for a fare structure may include:

 Generate high ridership;  Generate the most revenue and the highest “farebox recovery”;  Increase the mobility of specific groups; and  Improve access to a given area, etc.

The RTC addresses all these objectives in their fare policies and structure. In general, the RTC rates very well compared to other similar agencies across the country. In addition to a high farebox return, the RTC also boasts high ridership and high revenue for the level of service delivered compared to a set of 20 peer city transit agencies identified in Table 2.

To discuss and analyze the RTC fare structure, this assessment:  Reviews the RTC existing and historic fare structures;  Develops a brief theoretical context for understanding revenue generation and fare structures;  Reviews select relevant information, including fare studies at other transit agencies;  Reviews the RTC existing farebox inventory;  Conducts an NTD-based peer survey of fare structure and generated revenue;  Conducts an analysis of fare structure as it relates to total generated revenue; and  Makes general recommendations about fare structure and farebox capital

4.1. Existing and Historic Comparison

Table 1 lists the RTC existing fare structure. Additionally, this table lists the base-fare units of each fare type. This measurement is achieved by dividing the cost of a cash fare into the cost of other fare types. The result shows the breakeven point for the number of trips a passenger must take using a particular fare type before the passenger achieves a discount.

P a g e | 4-1

Table 1 – Existing Fare Structure

FARE TYPE Oct-09 base-fare units FARE TYPE Oct-09 base-fare units Cash $2.00 1 Cash $1.00 1 Day Pass $5.00 2.5 Day Pass $2.50 2.5 Day Pass Pre-purchased $4.00 2 Day Pass Pre-purchased $2.00 2 Ten Rides $17.00 8.5 Ten Rides $8.50 8.5 Week Pass $21.00 10.5 Week Pass $10.50 10.5

Adult Month Pass $70.00 35 Month Pass $35.00 35 IC Cash $4.00 2 IC Cash $2.00 2 IC Cash w/ RIDE/JAC $2.75 1.375 IC Cash w/ RIDE/JAC $1.25 1.25 IC Ten Rides $34.00 17 Senior/Disabled IC Ten Rides $17.00 17 Cash $1.00 1 Cash $0.50 1 Day Pass $2.50 2.5 Day Pass Day Pass Pre-purchased $2.00 2 Day Pass Pre-purchased Ten Rides $8.50 8.5 Ten Rides $5.00 10 Week Pass $10.50 10.5 Week Pass

Month Pass $35.00 35 Month Pass Youth IC Cash $2.00 2 IC Cash $2.00 4

IC Cash w/ RIDE/JAC $1.25 1.25 IC Cash w/ RIDE/JAC $0.80 1.6 RTC ACCESS RTC IC Ten Rides $17.00 17 IC Ten Rides N/A

The fare structure in Table 1 has been in place since late 2009. No increases have been made since 2009 as a result of the economic downturn beginning in 2008. The RTC averaged one fare change every two years from 1993 to 2003, and one fare change per year from 2003 to 2009.

Starting in August 2005, RTC has made a concerted effort to shift ridership to prepaid fare types over time. By doing so, RTC would benefit from reduced dwell times at bus stops as fewer passengers would need to feed cash into the farebox, and cash processing costs would be reduced. The shift towards pass use is evident from Figure 11, which shows pass versus cash usage from 2003 to 2011. Beginning in late 2005, unlinked passenger boardings attributed to pass use began to separate from those boardings attributed to cash use. With each fare increase, cash fares were increased at a greater rate than prepaid passes. With no fare increases since 2009, the growth rate in Day-Pass ridership has leveled off and the separation between cash usage and pass usage has stabilized.

P a g e | 4-2

Figure 11 – Cash Usage vs. Pass Usage

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

Cash Fare Rides 200,000

Monthly Passenger Boardings PassengerMonthly 100,000

Oct 03 Oct 06 Oct 08 Oct Oct 04 Oct 05 Oct 07 Oct 09 Oct 10 Oct

Jun 04 Jun 07 Jun 09 Jun Jun 03 Jun 05 Jun 06 Jun 08 Jun 10 Jun

Feb 03 Feb 05 Feb 06 Feb 08 Feb 10 Feb Feb 04 Feb 07 Feb 09 Feb

Figure 12 further illustrates the trade-offs in growth rates between cash ridership and pass ridership by plotting the ratio of cash ridership to day, week and month pass ridership. In early 2003, there were over 14 cash boardings for a single day-pass boarding. By design, this rate continuously declined from 2005 to mid-2009. Because of the unfavorable economic conditions since 2009, rather than fare increases, recent changes have included shortening the transfer window, raising the age of eligibility for seniors (from 60 to 65) over time to grandfather in those already eligible, and further discounting youth fares to one single discount fare.

Figure 12 – Cash to Pass Type Ratios

12 Cash/DayPass Cash/Week Pass 10 Cash/MonthPass

6 Cash/Pass Ratio Cash/Pass 4

Oct 04 Oct 06 Oct 08 Oct Oct 03 Oct 05 Oct 07 Oct 09 Oct 10 Oct

Jun 03 Jun 05 Jun 07 Jun 09 Jun Jun 04 Jun 06 Jun 08 Jun 10 Jun

Feb 04 Feb 06 Feb 08 Feb 10 Feb Feb 03 Feb 05 Feb 07 Feb 09 Feb

P a g e | 4-3

4.2. Peer Fare Practices

For a comparison of revenue and fare structures, the RTC was compared to a sample of twenty of its peers from the 2009 NTD. The peer agencies were chosen based on directional bus route miles, area served, and population served. Table 2 lists the peer agencies and comparison statistics. Table 2 – NTD Peer Agencies

Directional Population Area Served City State Bus Route Miles Served (square miles) Albuquerque NM 672.2 498,000 124 Anchorage AK 270.4 218,145 77 Bakersfield CA 382.5 452,671 98 Concord CA 503.9 500,000 143 Eugene OR 800.0 291,600 241 Gainesville FL 205.6 151,294 76 Grand Rapids MI 391.2 482,740 185 Gulfport MS 180.9 113,860 64 Hartford CT 281.0 531,314 456 Lansing MI 398.2 277,316 136 Las Vegas NV 1,386.0 1,986,146 280 Little Rock AR 309.0 164,733 94 Monterey CA 624.0 352,000 280 Reno NV 321.9 319,977 136 Salem OR 304.0 206,500 65 Salt Lake City UT 2,002.3 1,744,417 1,412 Santa Cruz CA 479.3 254,538 446 Savannah GA 237.9 232,048 438 Spokane WA 551.2 394,120 248 Vancouver WA WA 426.3 361,660 139

Table 3 lists some descriptive statistics for Reno and the peer survey group related to ridership and revenue. The measures listed are:

 Service area;  Service area population;  Service area population density;  Route miles; and  Passengers per P/RVH.

The population of the service area was statistically indistinguishable from the mean. At the same time, the size of the service area was significantly less than the mean, resulting in a significantly above average measure for population density—arguably one of the most important factors

P a g e | 4-4

contributing to transit ridership. As a result, the RTC had a passengers P/RVH performance in the 79th percentile of the sample.

Table 3 - Selected Descriptive Statistics Compared to 20 Peer Agencies: Ridership and Service

Passengers per Measure Service Area Population Density Route Miles RVH Min 64 113,860 530 181 10 Mean 257 476,654 2,396 536 27 Max 1,412 1,986,146 7,093 2,002 47 Reno 136 319,977 2,353 322 32 Reno Percentile 37th 47th 58th 37th 79th

Table 4 lists selected descriptive statistics related to costs and revenue for the RTC and the peer survey group. The selected measurements are:

 Loaded Cost;  Farebox Revenue;  Recovery Ratio;  Loaded Cost per Passenger;  Subsidy per Passenger; and  Mean Fare.

For mean fare, the RTC placed in the 47th percentile—only two cents below the mean. The RTC placed above the mean in loaded cost and farebox revenue. However, the RTC’s farebox revenue was in the 68th percentile while loaded cost placed in the 58th, resulting in an overall farebox recovery in the 79th percentile of the sample. The RTC’s measure for cost per passenger and subsidy per passenger were significantly below the mean of the sample for these measures.

This high P/RVH is attributed to the fact that the RTC serves its area and population with comparatively fewer actual route miles (37th percentile), which suggests that the RTC has done a good job of closely matching offered service to existing passenger demand. At the same time, this also suggests that the RTC may have opportunities to expand ridership and the transit mode share in the Reno area. Given a trade-off between expanded service and service efficiency compared to its peers, RTC’s policies and performance emphasize efficiency; resulting in a measure of efficiency (P/RVH) that is higher than 79% of all properties in the sample while exhibiting relatively flat service and ridership growth.

P a g e | 4-5

Table 4 – Selected Descriptive Statistics: Costs and Revenue

Loaded Farebox Recovery Cost per Subsidy per Mean Measure Cost Revenue Ratio Passenger Passenger Fare Min $3,502,498 $590,769 13% $1.85 $0.77 $0.40 Mean $34,185,936 $8,426,789 23% $3.93 $3.08 $0.85 Max $139,357,565 $53,794,689 59% $6.59 $5.47 $1.59 Reno $27,334,223 $7,012,490 26% $3.24 $2.41 $0.83 Reno Percentile 58th 68th 79th 37th 26th 47th

4.3. Fare Collection and Control

The process of fare collection and the time, place and nature of the collection and how it is controlled can have a major impact on passenger convenience, vehicle-passenger operations, and agency revenue.

Fare collection can be on the vehicle or off the vehicle. “On-vehicle” collection usually takes place at a farebox near the entry door. “Off-vehicle” fare collection (prior to boarding) includes ticket vending machines (TVMs) and customer service booths as well as pre-paid fares such as daily or monthly passes. It has been the RTC’s practice in setting fares since 2005 to encourage the purchase of passes. This practice lends itself well to off-vehicle collection.

On the control side, the advantages of fare collection at the time of boarding include straightforward pricing of fares. It also affords the ability to analyze fares prices and ridership data in the context of overall revenue generation by assessing the effect of the use of fare passes versus cash single rides.

Future Fare Collection Needs The RTC staff understands that, as the system develops and expands, it will become imperative to assess the benefits and the compatibility of newer, more comprehensive fare systems that can support the RTC’s objective to encourage greater use of passes. Passes help reduce the cost of the labor associated with collecting and processing cash, and they also provide better information about ridership that will help to understand the customer and allow for more responsive service. This upgrade can occur over a period of time as fareboxes are replaced to minimize the effect on capital budgets, but the key short-term effort should be to evaluate the best combination of fare and data collection systems for RTC’s needs. Two pilot programs have been recommended to begin testing the effectiveness and passenger acceptability of different fare collection methods that will permit a better foundation for evaluating appropriate fare collection equipment.

P a g e | 4-6

Collection challenges include increased dwell times as passengers feed cash into the farebox, vehicle scheduling and deployment issues due to full fareboxes, and passenger inconvenience associated with the need for exact change. From a control perspective, agencies using on- vehicle fare collection also incur the costs of processing cash.

4.3.1. RTC Existing Farebox, Capital and Fare Systems A transit agency’s fare system consists of that the tools or practices needed to collect fares from the rider and deposit them in the transit provider’s bank. The RTC of Washoe County currently operates fareboxes on all fixed-route vehicles. GFI Genfare is the sole source of the RTC’s boxes, which are a mix of the CENTSaBILL and Odyssey units. The breakdown of current fareboxes is:

 40 CENTSaBILL units  34 Odyssey units

Known as a “registering farebox,” the CENTSaBILL automatically registers and counts coins and bills. In addition to registry, this model can be modified with the addition of a ticket reader and issuer, known as a TRIM unit, so that this box can take and issue fare media such as day passes. In the RTC system, all the CENTSaBILL boxes have TRIM units installed.

An upgrade to models that only accomplish registry, the Odyssey is a “validating” farebox. This means that in addition to registering the total amount of ridership and revenue, the farebox validates coins and bills to prevent fraud. In the Odyssey, the TRIM unit is integrated as the box is manufactured. Furthermore, this model can be built with connections to other on-board systems such as Automatic Passenger Counters (APCs). All Odysseys in revenue service at RTC Washoe are configured with J-1708 links to the onboard APC. However, none of these fareboxes is connected to the APC units at this time. RTC Washoe intends that all new vehicles will have Odyssey fareboxes.

The central challenge of vehicle-side revenue operations remains the farebox and fare media. Challenges related to fare media stem from the need for the transit agency to operate a closed system with proprietary fare media (i.e., paper tickets and passes). Unlike most transit systems, other industries do not require “in-house currency,” which affords their customers greater flexibility. Furthermore, the procurement and issuance of card-stock (passes) is costly. These challenges have led many transit operators to consider open systems.

Generally, an open system of fare collection is any system in which the fare is not immediately verified upon entering the vehicle. In practice, the term “open system” has been split into two main categories:

 Barrier-free boarding; and  Contactless payment.

P a g e | 4-7

Barrier-free boarding, or self-service fare collection, is a system where passengers purchase a ticket from a ticket vending machine before boarding the vehicle. Fare control is accomplished by sampling a percentage of passengers to verify proper payment. Generally, barrier-free boarding is not preferred among U.S. bus transit operators because of the need for the extensive deployment of TVMs (over 1,000 in the RTC’s case). Contactless payment systems allow users to “tap in/tap out” of a transit vehicle by touching an RFID-enabled smartcard to a receiver that automatically deducts the proper fare from an account. This allows transit agencies to move away from issuing their own fare media. Some properties that have successfully implemented advanced payment systems include:  Oyster, London ENG  TransLink, VTA (San Jose, CA)  BiFF, Sweden  LACMTA, TAP smart card system (Los Angeles, CA)  TransLink, San Francisco, CA  TransLink, Queensland AUS  SmarTrip, WMATA (Washington, D.C.)  Pearl, Sydney AUS

While most of these are larger systems that can defray the costs of an investment in new technology more readily than smaller systems such as the RTC, contactless systems are expected to be part of the future of fare collection because of their simplicity from the rider’s perspective and their ability to streamline revenue processing and satisfy system planning needs. While the RTC may not be able to invest in such a system in the short term, it would be appropriate to plan for such an upgrade over time, beginning with an evaluation of the most appropriate systems and features for RTC operations.

4.3.2. ACCESS Fare Collection Currently, RTC ACCESS requires passengers to pre-purchase tickets for each ride. These tickets are sold in books of 10 online or singly at over 25 outlets throughout the service area. Riders are required to show a valid RTC ACCESS ID and present the operator with the correct number of tickets upon boarding the vehicle. This is a typical paratransit fare-collection model that is utilized by most transit agencies throughout the country. Some agencies have experimented with other methods of fare collection such as smart cards, which operate similarly to tickets in the paratransit application. Tickets and cards can have disadvantages. Riders who are elderly or possess certain cognitive disabilities can have a difficult time keeping track of fare media. Others may have a difficult time travelling to purchase tickets or do not understand how to purchase tickets online.

P a g e | 4-8

Some agencies are moving toward a “travel account” approach to paratransit fare collection. Travel account software eliminates managing tickets by allowing riders to travel without requiring any fare media. With a travel account, riders set up an account with the transit agency and prepay for trips by phone or online using a credit or debit card, eliminating the need to carry cash, tokens, or other paper-based forms of payment. When a customer books a trip, the operator can deduct the amount of the fare from the account, which is then placed into a holding account. Once the trip is taken, then the fare is deducted from the account. In addition to being able to add money to their accounts, riders can keep track of their account balances and view trips they’ve scheduled and taken. This type of fare collection can streamline the fare purchase, collection, and reporting processes. The travel account fare collection is being used successfully by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority as an add-on to the Trapeze Paratransit Scheduling Software.

Because of the nature of paratransit services, there is no immediate need to offer an enhanced fare collection technology. The service provided and the overall trip travel time is not usually affected by the time it takes to collect fares the way it is in a fixed-route environment. However, over time there is an opportunity to address basic customer needs and to streamline the process to simplify fare media and minimize errors and confusion in fare collection. These types of technologies should be evaluated in the future as they are more widely applied.

4.4. Fare Recommendations

The results of the fare study are separated into two parts: recommendations and further study needs. Based on the findings in the peer analysis, no immediate changes to the fare structure are recommended. The recommendations focus instead on internal RTC practices, farebox technology, and suggestions for pilot programs and additional studies.

Changes are proposed to the way the RTC, as an agency, treats fare policy and revenue operations. Recommendations deal with the way RTC collects, reports, and analyzes revenue data. The single-fare policy recommendation addresses period-pass sales and structure. The revenue operations and technology recommendation addresses a specific component of the GFI fareboxes designed to improve the geospatial analysis of fare media use. Finally, two pilot programs are recommended. Both pilot programs are intended to strategically introduce the Reno-Sparks area to advanced payment methodologies, such as self-service pass sales on board the vehicle and barrier-free boarding. Table 5 summarize the recommendations and includes a brief description and goal for each.

P a g e | 4-9

Table 5 – Summary of Recommendations

Type Name Description Goal Organizational Data Reporting Develop internal procedures for the Improved understanding of effective reporting and revenue, ridership and pass understanding of farebox and pass prices and usage revenue Revenue Spatial Fare Media Connect existing Odyssey fareboxes Gain better understanding of Operations and to the AVLs; Include J-1708 datalink the spatial distribution of fare Technology in five year capital plan media use and revenue generation Pilot Program On-board Self Service Pilot program of mounted TVMs Strategic positioning for Fare Payment mounted onboard vehicles advanced fare systems Pilot Program Non-Rapid RAPID Pilot program of barrier-free Strategic positioning for Barrier-Free Boarding boarding for pass holders on routes advanced fare structures other than The RAPID/CONNECT

4.4.1. Data Reporting Because of the nature of the fare policy, it would be useful for the RTC to consider restructuring the way ridership and revenue data are collected, processed, and reported. Currently, ridership reporting is primarily handled in the transit operations department, while the majority of revenue data collection and reporting is accomplished within the finance department. From a fare policy perspective, if these functions cannot be located within the same group, there needs to be a process for combining the outputs so they can be used to link ridership and revenues more closely. This would allow an ongoing review of fare structure performance and provide a good basis for adjustments if they are needed. Ideally, all revenue generated from farebox, TVMs, and vendor sales of fare media would be simultaneously reported, along with ridership data, on a monthly basis—and these measures should be reported in both organizational units. For example, period-pass ridership is best understood in the context of period-pass sales. The current practice is for period-pass sales to be reported through finance and period-pass ridership reported through transit operations. The two figures are not analyzed together on a monthly basis. This practice distances the fare structure and policy from the relationship between ridership and revenue collection.

4.4.2. Spatial Fare Media To gain a better understanding of the spatial distribution of revenue generation and fare media usage, it is recommended that RTC connect the existing J-1708 upgraded Odyssey fareboxes to the AVLs. Furthermore, all new Odyssey fareboxes should be configured with the J-1708 link. The capital budget will need to accommodate these upgrades.

4.4.3. On-board Self-Service TVM and Barrier-Free Boarding As a pilot program, it is recommended the RTC install on-board self-service TVMs for fare payment. The goal of this program is to strategically position RTC for advances in fare payment

P a g e | 4-10

technologies. This pilot program will introduce the Reno-Sparks riders, as well as RTC operations staff, to the day-to-day operations of advanced-fare payment. Additionally, a pilot program for barrier-free boarding for pass holders is recommended on non-RAPID routes. This program would also position the RTC for advanced fare structures while requiring little up front expenditure. This program may also improve operations, because dwell times may potentially fall on the programmed routes.

4.5. Further Study Needs

During the course of research into the RTC’s fare policy and capital needs, areas for further study were identified that can assist the RTC in gathering information about fares—more efficiently collecting fares and reducing the cost of fare collection. These areas of study are narrow in scope and will provide a comprehensive understanding of the public transit market in the Reno-Sparks area. It is proposed that these research initiatives occur within the FY 2012- 2016 SRTP in preparation for implementation toward the end of the five-year program or in the next SRTP. Table 6 lists the Further Study areas by type with brief descriptions and goals. Table 6 – Summary of Further Study Needs

Type Description Goal Passenger Survey Market segmentation and survey of purchasing and Understand local market for fixed ridership habits route transport Farebox Analyze the quality of existing farebox ridership data Quality control Reporting Study Fare Analysis An extended study of fare policy and ridership Improved fare policy characteristics Revenue Procedure-based study of the vault with emphasis Improved efficiency and cost savings Operations on reducing cost/dollar counted and increasing Analysis accuracy Impact Analysis Fare premium on any route during 15-minute or less Align fares with service quality headway service Use the “Urban Core” as a single zone and vary fares Account for distance consumed during into and out of the zone by cost by time-of-day periods of differing demand Eliminate the base fare – the minimum fare for Reduce cash in the revenue stream; entry into the system will be the day pass; only Improve dwell times; increase revenue stored ride pass users will require transfers Eliminate the base fare – the minimum fare for Reduce cash in the revenue stream; entry into the system will be the day pass; stored Reduce card-stock; improve dwell ride pass users will be required to transfer using a times; increase revenue stored ride

4.6. Passenger Survey

A field-based survey of ridership market segments for fare media preferences and utilization is needed. The survey will focus on how different segments of RTC passengers utilize different fare

P a g e | 4-11

types and how different fare media users would respond to changes in the cost of their particular medium (cross-elasticity). Gain over base analysis (GOBA - Appendix E) suggests ridership, fare media utilization, and fare–purchasing characteristics vary among different market segments in the RTC system. The survey would assist the RTC in gaining a more complete understanding of these characteristics to permit structuring the fare policy around this knowledge.

4.6.1. Farebox Reporting Study A field-based or camera-based survey of farebox reporting accuracy would help assess the potential for error in reporting during the collection process. Based on challenges encountered in the GOBA, the accuracy of the fareboxes, probe station, and corresponding databases should be studied. The survey would observe selected bus trips by either physically observing all cash and pass transactions during the trip or reviewing camera footage of all transactions. These trips would be followed through the probe process and finally queried from the database . A statistical comparison of observed transactions versus reported summaries would be conducted, utilizing standard procedures for testing precision, accuracy, and measurement error in industrial processes (reverse regression). The understanding of any identified error in the process will permit restructuring policies to prevent it, or, depending on the extent of the error, it may help in moving toward a more reliable fare collection system.

4.6.2. Revenue Operations Analysis A procedures-based study of vault-side revenue operations should be conducted to fully define the cost of the process. In particular, it is desirable to determine if there are steps in the process that can be streamlined or eliminated. The goal of this study will be increased efficiency and reductions in cost per dollar counted with improved accuracy or justification to move to a more efficient process that eliminates at least a portion the cost of the expensive counting step.

Premium-Service/Premium-Fare RTC should consider asking passengers on any route with a headway of less than 15 minutes to pay a premium fare. Passengers transferring to these routes would pay an upcharge to gain access to the premium service. This change would not require highly sophisticated fare collection equipment and can be accomplished with both the CENTSaBILL and Odyssey GFI fareboxes.

P a g e | 4-12

4.6.3. Zone and Time-of-Day Cost-Based Fares RTC should consider a premium charge for service extending beyond the McCarran Loop. The fares for Fares and Productivity these trips will also vary according to the subsidy per passenger based on the time-of-day distribution of P/RVH. Because it is based on P/RVH, this scheme has The RTC has the opportunity to the characteristic of charging lower fares during peak implement a number of travel (usually, peak fares are higher). This productivity-enhancing measures related to fares and fare collection, characteristic is designed with two goals in mind: (1) it but these represent a departure accurately reflects that the agency’s revenue/cost from current practice. Premium ratio is higher during the peak; and (2) the lower fare fares for premium service, during the peak seeks to attract more passengers to congestion pricing, elimination of the peak which would result in reduced demand in the the base fare, etc. are significant off-peak, potentially leading to cost savings through changes from the current operation trip eliminations. that could help to increase revenue and improve service. A gradual 4.6.4. No Base Fare with Transfers implementation process defined around budgetary opportunities and With the elimination of the base fare, the Day Pass constraints is appropriate as major would become the minimum fare for entry into the changes are contemplated. system. Transfers for stored ride passes are retained. This alternative may not coincide with an increase in the price of the Day Pass.

4.6.5. Fare Analysis Utilizing findings from the Survey of Ridership Characteristics and Farebox Reporting Technology, a comprehensive study of fares and fare policy should be conducted. The process of the GOBA will be repeated with a better understanding of ridership and reporting errors and inherent differences in the characteristics of RTC passengers—such as the different propensity to transfer among transit market segments. As part of this analysis, fare elasticity will be revisited with an added emphasis on passenger shifts between fare types as a response to changes in fare structure.

P a g e | 4-13

5. Transit Service Improvement Plan

The RTC’s basic transit route structure consists of a hub-and-spoke network. That approach has helped to make the agency’s current system competitive among peer systems for more than three decades. However, the RTC is now poised and well prepared to consider complementary approaches designed to position it strategically for the future of transit operations, including advanced payment forms, innovative network designs, improved technology, etc. Additionally, there is a need to prepare the current fixed-route system to best absorb potential funding shortages.

The RTC Board met in February 2011 to consider plans for transit service. Originally, the expectation was for a 15 percent reduction in service over the next five-year period. However, at the time, a turn-key bid for RIDE services was received, which allowed the RTC to retain current transit service levels. That assumption is the basis for the 2012–2016 SRTP and for plans and financial analysis. Two alternative transit service improvement concepts were developed in the SRTP: “Service Hour Shift” and “Routing Changes.” Based on Board direction in September 2011, the two concepts have been combined into a single Routing Changes Plan.

Routing Changes PlanThe Routing Changes concept is a refinement of existing services to emphasize opportunities to enhance productivity using the current level of funding. This plan is supported by five proposed productivity enhancement strategies.

One route in the RTC system is not addressed in the Transit Service Improvement Plan section. Alternatives for the INTERCITY route, which operates express service between Reno and Carson City, focus on fare policy and farebox recovery. As such, INTERCITY alternatives are presented in the Fare Analysis section.

5.1. Design Elements and Productivity Strategies

Transit systems are successful when they benefit from the support of policies and techniques that help make transit usage accessible, convenient, and comfortable. With that in mind, and as a foundation for the discussion of the transit service plan, five underlying strategies are proposed to aid in understanding and deploying an updated RTC transit service. They include:  The 80/20 Rule  Service Hour Shift  The Urban Core

P a g e | 5-1

 Transitways Program (TP) within the Primary Transit Network (PTN)1  The Employment Belt

5.1.1. Productivity and the 80/20 Rule This SRTP emphasizes productivity given the limited resources available Originally developed as part of the FY2000–2004 to deliver transit service in the SRTP, the 80-20 Rule (70–30 at that time) arose from Reno-Sparks area. With that in the trade-off between “productivity-oriented” and mind, the system has been evaluated “coverage-oriented” service design. Under this policy from the perspective of identifying approach, service falls into one of two categories: those routes that perform in the bottom third of the productivity  Productivity Service achieves the highest scale and, therefore, may offer the ridership per unit of service (P/RVH) and best opportunity to improve system achieves the “greatest possible benefits in terms wide performance over the course of persons served and would directly increase of the next five years. The planning transit mode share.” (RTC FY2007–2011 SRTP); process was not, however, limited or, to only those routes identified by low productivity. Route  Coverage Service maximizes the service area, improvements on better performing ensuring the highest percentage of an area’s routes were also identified when population has access to transit. opportunities presented themselves.

During the last few years, economic changes across the U.S. have resulted in a renewed interest in government operating more like a private business—maximizing returns for citizens from the expenditures of public funds. With this in mind, it is proposed that the 80-20 Rule be restated to require at least 80 percent of the RTC’s fixed-route transit funding to be allocated to routes of high productivity. With productivity-based service making up “at least” 80 percent of deployment, the potential exists for up to 100 percent of the fixed-route service to be optimized to return the highest level of productivity. The recommendations in this SRTP are primarily based on improving system productivity.

5.1.2. Service Hour Shift The Service Hour Shift emphasizes priority service along productive corridors to improve overall system performance. Service frequencies are proposed to be improved on productive routes by using savings from reduction or elimination of service on less productive routes.

The Service Hour Shift concept refers to service changes that do not involve changes to an entire route and reflects the same level of service in terms of RVH as the full 2010 system. In a sense, this is an operations monitoring plan that can serve to complement any route-specific changes that will be done under the Routing Changes described later in the program. In the Service Hour

1 The PTN was developed as part of the 2007-2011 SRTP. The current evolutions of these policies have been updated to reflect changes to the economic landscape and planning needs of the RTC and Reno area.

P a g e | 5-2

Shift concept, various segments of the service could be restructured, and possibly eliminated, based on low productivity. To aid in understanding the implications of the Service Hour Shift concept, Figure 13 shows the breakdown of routes according to their productivity ratings within the system. The low-performing routes are the most likely candidates for restructuring on the basis of productivity. Service hours saved from changes will be applied to other routes or other times within the Urban Core or to routes in locations where access is readily available. The reallocation of service hours will be made to routes that have the potential to generate further ridership and productivity.

Sub-Route productivity-based restructuring can include changes to:  Individual trips  Service span  Sections of a route

Individual trips can be cut from service based on productivity, or P/RVSH. Based on the RTC’s system-wide performance, individual trips could be candidates for restructuring. However, eliminating individual trips can be problematic because of the potential for wasted time in taking the vehicle out of service, deadheading back to the yard and completing post- and pre- trip duties in a short time. To guard against wasted time, trip-based reductions that involve a driver returning to the yard should occur only if at least two consecutive trips on a route fall below the productivity threshold.

Changes to service span are less problematic than trip-based changes. A route’s span of service refers to the times of the day the route operates. Service on the boundary of the span—at the beginning or end of the service day—tend to be less productive than during the peak or midday. Therefore, changes to service span occurring at the boundaries of the span have the potential to increase overall productivity. Furthermore, changes to span are more readily implemented from an operations scheduling perspective.

A change to particular sections of a route acknowledges that even the highest performing routes may have segments that might be bypassed based on low productivity. These changes may involve bypassing an off-route section that no longer serves its purpose, rerouting a terminal loop, or even “short-turning” a vehicle to make the route shorter. As with changes to service span, these types of service changes are relatively easy to implement from an operations scheduling perspective.

The Service Hour Shift concept does not change the ADA service because the fixed-route network is not proposed to change. As noted earlier, Figure 13 illustrates the current fixed-route network. Routes in blue and yellow indicate the highest potential for sub-route service reallocation. Routes in white have the highest potential to lose service in the course of reallocations, while routes in blue have the highest potential to receive additional service as hours are taken from lower-performing routes.

P a g e | 5-3

Figure 13 – Service Hour Shift Concept Route Productivity Map

P a g e | 5-4

5.1.3. The Urban Core The Urban Core concept is based on the fact that in any city there are areas where transit can compete effectively as a travel option. These areas tend to be in the central business district or in areas where high concentrations of people and places exist in close proximity. These sections of the city are often in older areas that were built before the modern automobile-oriented approach to development and tend to evolve around compact living patterns and pedestrian accessibility. In these areas, fixed-route transit can compete with the car by attracting passengers from a high concentration of potential riders.

A geographic definition of the Urban Core was developed based on population, employment and income statistics from the Washoe County TAZs. By defining an area of dense population, dense employment, and relatively lower income, an area where transit can compete effectively was identified. By contrast, the area outside of the Urban Core comprises generally lower employment and residential densities and higher income. These factors traditionally result in comparatively fewer transit trips.

To assess the effects of these three factors at the same time, a “transit use potential” index (TUPI) was developed. The index normalizes population and employment densities by income for the planning horizon of 2018. The normalized population and employment density measures were multiplied and used as a filter to identify TAZs that could be isolated as part of the Urban Core. Figure 14 shows the resulting index overlaid on the map of the region. Figure 15 shows each geographic distribution of the three measures and the proposed resulting geographic definition of the Urban Core.

P a g e | 5-5

Figure 14 – Transit Use Potential Index

P a g e | 5-6

Figure 15 – Urban Core

There are areas of the map not included in the Urban Core even though they meet the definition of the TUPI, and others are included that do not meet the strict definition of the TUPI. These “discrepancies” are tolerated for the sake of clarity and understanding. Over time, the TUPI will likely change as conditions in the region change and with it, the limits of the Urban Core . In general, the Urban Core would likely expand outward as the area grows. In this case, the McCarran Loop was a logical break in the south and north around which to establish the primary transit services in the Reno-Sparks area.

5.1.4. Transitways Program The PTN is a system of corridors intended to concentrate transit activity to achieve a high level of service within the RTC fixed-route network. Though it is often thought of as a system of routes, the PTN is a more broadly defined network of opportunities for service and is intended to encourage land use and transportation to evolve jointly towards building higher mode splits in the RTC service area.

P a g e | 5-7

Using the same basic objective, the Transitways Program (TP) proposes to redefine the PTN as a high-level policy and operations planning tool for ongoing system evaluation. This step would help to reduce consideration of the PTN as a route-specific network and would shift the focus of the PTN toward oversight of streets and routes that would receive preferential treatment in the local and regional planning process. This change would also provide for the identification within the PTN streets where service does not currently exist, but could be developed in the future based on demand and resources. In this way, the PTN would serve as the underlying structure for the TP.

The objective of the TP would be to develop a joint program between the RTC, the TMRPA and the cities of Reno and Sparks to identify and nurture individual streets for continued and improved coordination between transit and other roadway elements. Transitways would be developed from the review of service and service opportunities in PTN corridors.

A corridor identified as a transitway could receive a high volume of transit vehicles with transit- priority treatments implemented to move people as efficiently as possible via the fixed route system. In this sense, the TP is designed to be route-specific, unlike the PTN, and it is intended to increase the mode share of transit by establishing better balance between transit and the automobile in roadway planning and design.

The TP would pursue transit-related improvements on strategic roadways2 and its four goals include:

 Establishing a clear priority for transit operations with convenient, accessible transit stops;  Promoting roadway and pedestrian safety, including reduction of vehicle speeds, with particular emphasis of the safety of passengers waiting on the roadside for a bus;  Creating a strong pedestrian orientation, including adequate circulation space, ease in crossing streets, and appropriate amenities, all of which contribute to comfort and convenience; and  A strategy conceived of and integrated into larger community development or livability enhancing strategies, which involves working closely with the affected communities.

The TP would exist as an extension of the policy framework of the PTN. A key responsibility would include RTC reviews and coordination of local corridor studies (conducted through RTC MPO) for inclusion in the TP. Another key responsibility would be the evaluation of corridors that do not currently have transit service, but with improvements outlined in the TP could be transformed into transit-rich environments. A key example of this would be the Oddie Boulevard Corridor Study of 2011.

2 TCRP Report 33, Transit Friendly Streets: Design and Traffic Management Strategies to Support Livable Communities

P a g e | 5-8

5.1.5. The Employment Belt An analysis of the geographic layout of ridership, population and employment was conducted to estimate the impact on ridership of potential routing changes using RTC TAZs. Using the TAZs, the design team isolated 2008 estimates of population and employment within a 5-minute walk of each route in the RTC system. Route-level ridership during the same period was compared to the population and employment data for each route. Statistical analysis of these data repeatedly suggested that the number of jobs within walking distance to a transit route correlated to reduced passenger demand. This is inconsistent with known relationships between employment and ridership. These results, while paradoxical, accurately describe some routes in Reno, suggesting that service to these areas can be improved. Some options for service improvement are based on the known positive relationship between employment and travel demand—both theoretical and empirical—and the statistical anomalies discovered by the design team.

It is important to note these finding do not suggest that jobs cause reduced transit demand. The findings reflect that some existing routes, serving high employment areas, underperform relative to the number of jobs in the area. For example the top three routes in terms of jobs within walking distance are:

Route Jobs within Walking Distance Rank 2008 Annual Ridership Rank Route 18 1st 13th Route 6 2nd 11th RAPID/CONNECT 3rd 1st

The top two routes for jobs within walking distance reflect only median level ridership.

To further investigate this idea, peak-hour origin-destination pairs from RTC Travel Demand Model results were isolated based on the Urban Core as a destination. Existing TAZs in the Urban Core were grouped so that new zones were similar in size—eliminating discrepancies between absolute levels of population and employment and the density of these measures. Figures 16, 17, and 18 illustrate travel patterns for residents of Kings Row, Stead, and Sun Valley, respectively. These results echo Route 18’s 1st rank for jobs within walking distance to the route and work to formalize the idea of The Employment Belt.

The Employment Belt (Figure 19) is directly served by Route 18 and is an important destination. But any passenger going to the Employment Belt must first transfer to Route 18 from another route. Based on these results and a generalized theory of travel demand, the transfer-intensive nature of the pulse system may dampen transit demand among work commuters—particularly commuters with a car—as peak-hour trips showed a greater attraction to the Employment Belt. As a design element, the Employment Belt was treated as a destination, with some alternatives directly serving this region with one-seat-rides. Alternatives for Routes 7 and 17 and Routes 3, 4, and 11 attempt to address this finding.

P a g e | 5-9

Figure 16 – Stead Travel Patterns

Figure 17 – King’s Row Travel Patterns

Figure 18 – Sun Valley Travel Patterns

P a g e | 5-10

Figure 19 - The Employment Belt

P a g e | 5-11

5.2. Fixed Route Transit System Concepts Service Enhancements for At the outset of the preparation of the SRTP, the Higher System Productivity expectation was that a 15 percent or higher reduction in service hours would be needed to balance the RTC RIDE budget. Six alternative This SRTP proposes primarily minor adjustments to service. However, approaches were developed and prepared for RTC there are other modifications that consideration in seeking the best compromise could be considered to help attract between service and cost. These included: ridership. Among these are:  15 percent Reduction Concept – A productivity Direct Routing – The preference only-based plan for RTC bus service. This option for all routes to access the main proposed reducing service primarily by cutting transit centers (4th Street Station and routes or reducing frequency on lines or in areas Centennial Plaza) may interfere with that are below a threshold performance level. the RTC’s ability to deliver services that could help attract riders. If select  Direct Route Concept – A revision to the hub- routes are allowed to bypass the and-spoke operating concept now in operation to transit centers in favor of more direct favor the PTN and streamline services for routing of buses to major maximum efficiency. This could include more destinations, it would shorten the direct connections and fewer stops at the main travel time on key routes and attract transit centers. more passengers. It could also reduce operating costs by making more  Hybrid Concept – A concept that retains the links efficient use of the equipment. of some routes to the transit centers but also defines direct connections between key Pulse Operation – The “pulsing” of destinations within the system such as within the buses to minimize wait times at the Urban Core. main transit centers is appealing for those who would otherwise wait a  Redeployment Concept – A redesign of service to long time for a connection. The enhance productivity retaining the current level problem is the requirement to wait of funding. for a preset time wastes time for  Pure PTN Concept – A 25 percent reduction from many buses. It particularly affects buses with high frequencies by forcing current service using only the PTN as a basis for layover periods as other routes fostering long-term growth of transit services gather. The high-frequency services primarily within the Urban Core. The pure PTN do not need to pulse with other concept was considered the pre-cursor to the routes because their wait times are Service Hour Shift alternative mentioned on Page already short. The unnecessary 5-2. waiting adds to costs and provides  Street Car Concept – A 50 percent reduction in only minor benefit for those who system service to permit bonding for a street car- would otherwise wait in the comfort of the centers. based system along key routes and to encourage system to grow around the key corridors over time supported by high quality backbone transit service.

P a g e | 5-12

Some of the concepts contained in these options are worthy of merit regardless of the economic conditions and have been incorporated into the proposed plan. However, updated economic forecasts and cost information received from an early 2011 turnkey bid for the operation of fixed-route services allowed planning for service at 2010 RVH levels through the 2012–2016 SRTP period. A system-wide plan was chosen through a process of internal review, public outreach and RTC Board direction: the Routing Changes Plan.

The service attributes and cost tables developed here are estimates (see Appendix A). They do not take into account various efficiency enhancement techniques such and interlining or individual trip eliminations based on low ridership. Service attribute data for the Routing Changes are based on designed trip length and average speeds from existing routes that utilize the same street. Both alternatives focus on strengthening service within the Urban Core. The New Pyramid Way route provides for improved access in the suburban area it serves.

5.2.1. System-wide Routing Changes Plan The Routing Changes (RC) Plan is a restructuring of service to emphasize opportunities to enhance productivity using the current level of funding. This concept selects the desirable elements from the planning and public-outreach efforts and emphasizes consolidation of routes to avoid duplication of service and, generally, a focus on efficiency to maintain high productivity. For example, this concept assumes the addition of continuous service from the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) campus to Virginia Street and service on Pyramid Way from Centennial Plaza to the Sparks Galleria. Both these route changes are expected to draw additional ridership and enhance system productivity. The RC concept generally attempts to create continuous service in a long, single direction. There are also a number of routes adjustments that are recommended for further analysis and for which additional data will be required to fully understand their effect. Among these, existing Routes 5 and 13 are proposed to be connected at 4th Street to offer one-seat continuity between Sun Valley and Central Reno. In the same fashion, the existing Routes 2 and 25 are connected to provide similar service to the residents of central Sparks. Route adjustments for these may be the subject of the service hour shift analysis RTC can undertake as a foundation for new service before periodic service changes are formulated.

The RC Plan consists of three broad categories: No Change, Further Study, and Service Options and Eliminations. The service options are grouped into six packages—A through F—outlined in Table 7, which combine to form the system shown in Figure 20. Table 8 contains an itemized list of route changes, with an explanation of the basis for the recommendation, and Table 9 lists annual platform and in-service hours. Individual route maps are also provided to graphically show the proposed change.

P a g e | 5-13

Figure 20 – Routing Changes Plan

P a g e | 5-14

Table 7 – Summary of Routes in the Routing Changes Plan

Type Route Option No Change Route 5 Route 15 Route 16 Route 26 Route 54 CONNECT INTERCITY Proposed Regardless RAPID RAPID Extends to UNR of Option Pyramid Way New Service on Pyramid Way Options A Routes 3, 4, & 11 Provide direct service through downtown and into the Routes 7 & 17 Employment Belt from Stead (Routes 7 & 17) and West Reno (Routes 3 & 4). B Route 6, 9 & 14 Provide north-south grid service in south central Reno. These options occur in unison: Route 6 moves west of Virginia; Route 9 moves to cover Kietzke; Route 12 then covers Neil . C Routes 13 & 19 Route 19 is eliminated and Route 13 covers the Reno International Airport. D Route 21 Reduced one-way loop; two-way service to employment center.

E Route 99 New route (99) cross town service Further Study Routes 5 & 15 Extend Route 5 into the Employment Belt Route 2 to Vista Extend Route 2 to Baring/Vista Downtown Circulator Use the Sierra Spirit vehicles in a strict downtown circulator Elimination Route 4 Service covered by restructured Route 3 Route 17 Lemmon Valley service retained via a Park & Ride Route 19 Area covered by RAPID and restructured Route 13 Route 25 Service covered by Route 99 and Route 26 Route 28 Service covered by Routes 54, 7, 3 and 18; lost connection to Centennial Plaza. Sierra Spirit Service covered partially by restructured RAPID.

P a g e | 5-15

Table 8 – Itemized List of Proposed Routing Changes Plan

Route Option Timeline RAPID  Extend the RAPID to UNR Pyramid Way  New service on Pyramid Way from Centennial Plaza to the Sparks Galleria Rt 2/2s  Short-turn into Centennial Plaza via Rock  Eliminate Rt 2s  FURTHER STUDY: Extend to Baring/Vista Rt 3 & 4  Combine Rt3/Rt4 north of I-80 and extend east to Glendale/Greg  Extend Rt 11 (Rt 11a) to Sky Valley area Rt 5  FURTHER STUDY: Extend Route 5 into the Employment Belt Rt 6  Service off Moana  Southern terminus becomes a Moanna, Peckham, Lakeside, Virginia loop Rt 7 and 17  Combine Rt 7 and 17  Develop/Operate Lemmon Park & Ride  FUTURE STUDY: Extend Rt 7 into the Employment Belt Rt 9  Rt 9 off Neil (Rt 12 covers Neil service)  Continues south on Kietzke, south on Virginia into Meadowood Mall Rt 11  Extend west on 4th to Keystone  Add Rt 11a to Sky Valley Park & Ride Rt13  Onto Kuenzli/2nd copulate  Rt 13 into Airport  Eliminate Rt 19 Rt 14  Use Kuenzli/2nd couplate  Potential access to Wal-Mart and Sierra Grand from 2nd  Reduce Edison/Corporate loop Rt 18  FUTURE STUDY: eliminated Rt 19  Eliminated Rt 21  Reduce loop  Service closer to Legends Rt 25  Eliminated – replaced with Rt 99 (Plumb/Sparks)

Table 9 – Summary Attributes of the Routing Changes Plan

Revenue Vehicle Service Hours Platform Service Hours Annual Cost Day Annual Day Annual Weekday 821 213,460 862 224,133

Non-Weekday 699 72,696 734 76,331 $28.5 Million

Total 1,520 286,156 1,596 300,464

P a g e | 5-16

6. RTC ACCESS

6.1. Service Area

Paratransit services under the ADA are required to be provided for any person living within ¾ mile from an existing fixed route and meet the eligibility criteria listed previously. The required service area under the ADA is approximately is 96 square miles.

The RTC provides paratransit service beyond what is required of the ADA by offering a supplemental service area. The supplemental service area expands the required ADA service area by 153 square miles, which serves an additional 436 passengers that would otherwise be without accessible transportation. Patrons residing in the supplemental service area pay a premium for services and are prioritized behind ADA trips. The paratransit service area is shown in Figure 21.

6.2. Analysis of Performance Indicators

Following is a discussion of some of the key performance indicators.

6.2.1. Ridership The system carried about 246,807 passengers in FY 2005 and has decreased to 214,862 from April 2010 through March 2011 (approximately 4.3 percent). This could be due to a variety of reasons, such as supplemental area trips, fare increases or increased usage of the fixed-route system during the review period. However, budgetary constraints limiting the amount of service, resulting in trip denials, is the most likely restriction on non-subscription demand. However, compared to other cities, RTC ACCESS does well in attracting ridership.

6.2.2. Productivity and Cost Per Revenue Hour Productivity for RTC ACCESS has remained above industry average in terms of passengers carried per hour. Currently, RTC ACCESS averages just over 2.6 passengers per hour, which compares favorably with peer operators that typically carry between 2.0 and 3.0 passengers per hour. This average is based on consistently high performance; however, productivity over the last few years has declined slightly. Growth within the region has increased trip lengths, increased traffic congestion and resulted in slower travel speed, which has contributed to the drop in productivity. Figure 22 shows ACCESS compared to other peer systems services in terms of P/RSH.

P a g e | 6-1

Figure 21 – ACCESS Service Area

P a g e | 6-2

Figure 22 – Productivity of ACCESS Compared to Peer Cities

3.50

3.00

2.50 Mean 2.00

1.50

Hour 1.00

0.50

0.00 Unlinked Passenger Trips per Vehicle Revenue

The cost per hour of a selection of peer paratransit agencies ranges from $37.34 to over $96 per hour (2009), with an average of approximately $60 per hour (Figure 23). RTC ACCESS cost per hour was relatively high in comparison at $72.71. There are a number of variables that can have an effect on demand-response service costs, which could explain the wide range of costs among peer agencies. Variables such as contracts costs, service area, fares, vehicle types, and fuel costs can all have a significant effect on cost per hour. As RTC ACCESS moves forward, these variables should be monitored to determine how costs can be reduced while maintaining its high standards for service.

P a g e | 6-3

Figure 23 – Productivity of ACCESS Compared to Peer Cities

$120.00

$100.00

$80.00

Mean $60.00

$40.00

$20.00

$0.00 Operating Expenses Vehicleper Revenue Hour

6.3. Benefit/Cost Analysis on the Supplemental ADA Service Area

Currently, RTC ACCESS provides paratransit service to a large area beyond what is required under the ADA. The RTC provides paratransit service to ADA-eligible persons that would otherwise be required to find other means of transportation. This area is known as the supplemental service area, and passengers travelling to or from this area pay a premium fare. The required ADA paratransit service area consists of all areas that fall within ¾ mile from a fixed route. The RTC’s required ADA service area is 98 square miles and serves 3,153 customers. The supplemental service area extends the required ADA area by 153 square miles (adding 436 customers) for a total of 251 square miles of coverage, and providing service to an additional 3,589 paratransit customers.

A benefit/cost analysis is recommended to obtain a better understanding of how the supplemental service area impacts operations, costs, and performance to the paratransit system as a whole. The supplemental paratransit service area adds 156 percent more covered area, but yields only a 14 percent increase in riders. While a full assessment of the service was not completed as part of this analysis, on the basis of the large added coverage area and the relatively minor number of added customers, it appears there is a need to re-evaluate the

P a g e | 6-4

supplemental area paratransit service. This could mean a revision in the cost of the service, the type of service offered, or the extent of the service offered.

P a g e | 6-5

7. Tahoe Area Rapid Transit and Other Services

7.1. TART

The RTC funds a small portion of the TART system within Washoe County between Incline Village and King’s Beach. Anticipated expenditures over the next five years continue to identify the TART commitment as a minor funding association with the service in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The RTC funds (about $150,000 a year) are supplemented by FTA Section 5311 support.

7.2. Tahoe Transportation District

More broadly, the Tahoe Transportation District (TTD), which supports TART services among other responsibilities within the basin, is interested in working with the RTC to develop a regional transit system concept that will improve the linkages between Lake Tahoe and the Truckee Meadows area. In particular, TTD would like to encourage a higher level of transit use to prevent existing problems related to parking at the lake from becoming more onerous. Since there is no connection between the services offered by RIDE and TART, a shuttle linking the two areas, even on a seasonal basis, would afford improved access and help reduce the demand for limited parking space along the lake itself.

TTD is also interested in a similar improvement in transit connections between service on US 50 and Reno. By making a more direct linkage to the RTC’s INTERCITY route by streamlining services from the Lake to the Carson Valley, it could substantially reduce the time of a trip that now requires at least two transfers.

7.3. Vanpool Program

The original RTC subsidy was based on passenger trips and was roughly equivalent to the average subsidy per regular transit passenger when the program was developed. If all miles traveled were within Washoe County, the subsidy was $1.80 per person per trip. If travel extended outside Washoe County, the subsidy was prorated based on the ratio of miles traveled within Washoe County compared with the total miles traveled, with a maximum threshold of $1.44 (80 percent of $1.80).

The original subsidy program was confusing to potential customers and difficult to administer for RTC. Additionally, the calculation favors vanpools working 5-day weeks over 4-day weeks. While this makes sense if the trip reduction program’s only objective is to reduce vehicle miles of travel, RTC SMART TRIPS also encourages businesses to incorporate reduced work weeks into their business models.

In 2009, VPSI was granted a new three-year contract to operate the vanpool program with two additional option years was executed. During FY 2010, the RTC Trip Reduction Specialist interviewed prospective and current vanpool participants, researched the FTA’s Capital Cost of

P a g e | 7-1

Contracting guidelines, and analyzed alternate subsidy structures. Based on the findings of that investigation, the RTC Board approved changing the vanpool subsidy to a fixed amount per vanpool. Beginning in August 2010, subsidy calculations were based on 40 percent of the VPSI lease amount (including taxes). The RTC Vanpool subsidy is paid directly to VPSI and then credited to each vanpool coordinator’s account to offset operating expenses.

FY 2010 began with nine vanpools in the program traveling from the Reno-Sparks area to Herlong, California. Four vanpools comprised employees from the Federal Correction Institute, and five comprised employees from the Sierra Army Depot. By the end of the federal fiscal year (September 2010), there were nine vanpools traveling to each of the two employers.

The vanpool program has grown to a size that requires including vanpool data as part of the RTC’s mandatory report to the NTD as a federal grant recipient. NTD data collection and reporting began in March 2010. VPSI collects and compiles the data and reports them to the RTC. NTD data are used to determine federal allocations of FTA’s Urbanized Area Formula Program §5307 funds. Reporting the vanpool statistics should result in increased FTA §5307 grant funds being allocated to the RTC within a couple of reporting cycles. The additional grant funds could be used to make the vanpool program self-sustaining, or directed to other transit funding needs.

The accomplishments of the vanpool program during FY 2010 were very positive:  The vanpool program increased from 9 to 18 vanpools.  As a result of shared rides through the RTC Vanpool program, 38,157 single-occupant trips were eliminated in FY 2010, up from 33,398 in FY 2009 (a 14 percent increase).  The shared rides also eliminated 2,104,987 vehicle miles of travel (VMT) within Washoe County in FY 2010, up from 1,851,033 in FY 2009 (a 14 percent increase).  Subsidies to vanpool participants increased 92 percent, from $20,957 in FY 2009 to $40,274 in FY 2010.

P a g e | 7-2

8. Financial Plan

This FY2012–2016 Financial Plan shows RTC’s ability to satisfy the financial requirements related to public transit operation. The financial plan is designed to ensure the recommended service and capital improvements are supported throughout the FY 2012–2016 planning period on a year-by-year basis.

The highlights of the Five-Year Financial Plan show that the initiation of a turnkey service contract in fiscal year 2012 portends changes to the financial plan for the RTC’s transit services. The assumption is that service will continue at 2010 levels based on the favorable service bids received for the five-year SRTP period. Compared to the prospect of significant service reductions, the SRTP shows a financial plan with the flexibility to handle identified shortfalls, though it could require sacrifice of service or reduction in administrative or other costs. In general, no major cost increases (beyond nominal growth provided for in contracts) are associated with the proposed service changes because the level of service remains constant. There are, however, recommendations to change fare practices that could have cost consequences in the short term with the expectation of improved performance and cost benefits later on.

Over the five-year period, total operating expenses associated with the plan would grow from $32.9 million in FY2012 to $34.7 million in FY2016. Given the spending and revenue assumptions for O&M of the services in the plan, the amount of revenue drawn from the RTC’s local sales tax revenue source would increase from $14.3 million in FY2012 to $16.6 million in FY2016, but result in a small cash balance deficit of $478,000 at the end of the five year period. Operations alone, however, incurs a deficit in four of the five years, resulting in a cumulative deficit of $10.8 million over the course of the five years of the program. This shortfall can be mitigated in at least three ways: higher revenues from sales tax collections, a larger sales tax allocation to transit services, or cost reductions in the form of a 5 percent service or administrative cost reduction. These options could also be combined to achieve a balanced plan.

The most significant capital expenses in a restricted capital plan are associated with the replacement of vehicles for RIDE and ACCESS. Additionally, the plan calls for continued but modest investments in stop amenities, fare collection equipment and other technology upgrades.

By adopting this plan, the RTC Board of Commissioners is not committing to funding all the recommendations over the five-year period. Each year, a refined and balanced funding request for the upcoming fiscal year’s recommendations will be included in the budget planning process and recommendations will be considered along with other agency priorities.

P a g e | 8-1

8.1. Revenue

The RTC primary source of revenue is the local sales tax. It is also the primary support for the transit system. Over the next five years, the expectation is for sales tax revenue to move up and down with the forecast for the economy. In general, sales taxes rise with a growing economy and drop when there is little activity in the marketplace. As the economy improves, sales tax collections are estimated to rise modestly over the SRTP period. These forecasts are subject to change based on events and trends around the world.

Low revenue forecasts will impact RTC’s ability to expand services except through modifying route structure and maintaining a similar level of service in the system as a whole. The recommended plan proposes modifications that seek to provide enhanced services without significantly changing the number of revenue hours offered. This approach is based on increasing productivity in the system and increasing revenue from operations to bring overall farebox recovery closer to the policy goal and reduce shortfalls in the program budget. Though it is not included in the recommendations, a fare increase will need to be considered over the next years to offset any growth in costs. This is particularly likely if the economy turns upward and costs begin to rise more rapidly.

8.2. Costs

The RTC performs very well compared to peer cities in holding down the costs of delivering a good service to the community. While costs can always be reduced, that approach is not always effective and there are no specific areas that demand attention as a wasteful expenditure of funds. As noted in the section on revenue, a renewed focus on system productivity will help keep costs in check as changes to service are made, but there may need to be a new emphasis on revenue increases to offset costs.

8.3. Financial Plan and Performance

The fact that the RTC compares well with its peer agencies is testimony to the efficiency of the financial performance. The following tables show anticipated cost for capital as well as L&M for the 2012–2016 SRTP.

P a g e | 8-2

Table 10 – Five-Year Capital Program

Regional Transportation Commission FY 12 - FY 16 Short Range Transit Plan Projected Five Year Capital Plan FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 Total FACILITIES

Villanova $655,000 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $755,000 Terminal $91,000 $1,000,000 $1,091,000 Sutro $663,250 $663,250 Land/Design - Bus Storage $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,400,000 $2,400,000 Transit Stations $40,000 $40,000 Other Equipment (Shop equipment, other) $13,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $100,000 $263,000 Total Facilities and Related Improvements $1,462,250 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $3,600,000 $5,212,250 VEHICLES AND ACCESSORIES Replacement Coaches $5,167,248 $2,599,650 $0 $10,710,000 $18,476,898 Replacement Vans $2,250,000 $2,325,000 $2,625,000 $7,200,000 Van Accessories $0 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $75,000

Total Vehicles and Accessories $7,417,248 $4,949,650 $25,000 $13,360,000 $0 $25,751,898

RAPID $5,632,310 $5,632,310

ITS $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $200,000 $0 COMPUTERS Computer Hardware $25,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $150,000 $400,000 Computer Software $235,875 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $100,000 $455,875 Total Computers $260,875 $115,000 $115,000 $115,000 $250,000 $855,875

TRANSIT ENHANCEMENTS Transit Enhancements $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $55,000 $205,000 Total Transit Enhancements $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $55,000 $205,000

TOTAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PLAN $14,772,683 $5,214,650 $290,000 $13,625,000 $3,955,000 $37,857,333

CAPITAL FUNDING FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 Total FTA 5309 (incl. TIGGER) $6,083,364 $0 $0 $4,284,000 $10,367,364 FTA 5307 $424,000 $2,000,000 $140,000 $1,540,000 $3,084,000 $7,188,000 CMAQ $6,887,984 $2,599,650 $0 $5,962,250 $15,449,884 Local Sales Tax $1,377,335 $615,000 $150,000 $1,838,750 $871,000 $4,852,085 Special Funding $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other (DOE, FEMA) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other (ARRA) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Capital Funding $14,772,683 $5,214,650 $290,000 $13,625,000 $3,955,000 $37,857,333

P a g e | 8-3

Table 11 – Five-Year Operating Plan

Regional Transportation Commission FY 12 - FY 16 Short Range Transit Plan Projected 5 Year Operating Data and Performance Indicators RTC RIDE/RTC ACCESS RTC RIDE FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 Total Operating Data Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 2012-16 Passengers 7,765,329 8,030,658 8,295,986 8,561,315 8,826,644 41,479,932 Revenue Hours 252,361 251,882 251,882 251,882 251,882 1,259,889 Revenue Miles 3,003,385 2,997,685 2,997,685 2,997,685 2,997,685 14,994,125 Fare Revenue $6,056,957 $6,263,913 $6,577,659 $6,919,481 $7,273,670 $ 33,091,680.00 Operating Costs $26,445,306 $26,449,203 $26,772,009 $27,267,575 $27,749,645 $ 134,683,738.00 Performance Indicators Passengers/hour 30.8 31.9 32.9 34.0 35.0 33.0 Passengers/mile 2.59 2.68 2.77 2.86 2.94 2.8 Cost/hour $104.79 $105.01 $106.29 $108.26 $110.17 $ 106.99 Farebox Recovery 22.9% 23.7% 24.6% 25.4% 26.2% 24.6% Cost/passenger $3.41 $3.29 $3.23 $3.18 $3.14 $ 3.25 Subsidy/passenger $2.63 $2.51 $2.43 $2.38 $2.32 $ 2.45

RTC ACCESS FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 Total Operating Data Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 2012-16 Passengers 216,000 215,200 215,200 215,200 215,200 1,076,800 Revenue Hours 77,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 377,000 Revenue Miles 1,221,045 1,189,330 1,189,330 1,189,330 1,189,330 5,978,365 Fare Revenue $676,080 $645,600 $656,254 $668,963 $682,067 $ 3,328,964.00 Operating Costs $6,165,573 $6,078,345 $6,297,579 $6,448,546 $6,633,134 $ 31,623,177.00 Performance Indicators Passengers/hour 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 Passengers/mile 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Cost/hour $80.07 $81.04 $83.97 $85.98 $88.44 $ 83.90 Farebox Recovery 11.0% 10.6% 10.4% 10.4% 10.3% 10.5% Cost/passenger $28.54 $28.25 $29.26 $29.97 $30.82 $ 29.37 Subsidy/passenger $25.41 $25.25 $26.21 $26.86 $27.65 $ 26.28

Total RIDE and ACCESS Operating Costs $32,610,879 $32,527,548 $33,069,588 $33,716,121 $34,382,779 $166,306,915

Other Operating Costs Night Taxi Operating Cost $281,663 $281,663 $281,663 $281,663 $281,663 $1,408,315 Non Urbanized Operating Cost $30,038 $30,038 $30,038 $30,038 $30,038 $150,190 TART $5,358 $5,358 $5,358 $5,358 $5,358 $26,790

Other Operating Costs $317,059 $317,059 $317,059 $317,059 $317,059 $1,585,295 TOTAL OPERATING COSTS $32,927,938 $32,844,607 $33,386,647 $34,033,180 $34,699,838 $167,892,210

Operations Funding FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 Total Passenger Fares (RIDE and ACCESS) $6,733,037 $6,909,513 $7,233,913 $7,588,444 $7,955,737 $36,420,644 Local Sales Tax $14,284,214 $15,439,538 $16,302,227 $15,102,633 $16,574,215 $77,702,827 Advertising $450,000 $477,405 $491,727 $506,479 $521,673 $2,447,284 Lease Income $462,500 $490,666 $505,386 $520,548 $536,164 $2,515,264 Misc Revenue $122,176 $58,350 $60,100 $61,903 $63,760 $366,289 State Contribution $514,135 $335,000 $335,000 $335,000 $335,000 $1,854,135 CMAQ $4,560,000 $5,080,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $1,600,000 $14,440,000 FTA Section 5307 (PM) $3,951,861 $4,121,085 $4,297,666 $4,463,657 $4,463,657 $21,297,926 TOTAL FUNDING $31,077,923 $32,911,557 $30,826,019 $30,178,664 $32,050,206 $157,044,369 NET OPERATING INCOME/(LOSS) -$1,850,015 $66,950 -$2,560,628 -$3,854,516 -$2,649,632 -$10,847,841

P a g e | 8-4

Table 12 – Five-Year Financial Plan Summary

Regional Transportation Commission FY 12 - FY 16 Short Range Transit Plan Projected 5 Year Financial Plan

Expenses FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 Total Capital Program $ 14,772,683 $ 5,214,650 $ 290,000 $ 13,625,000 $ 3,955,000 $ 37,857,333 Operations (RIDE and ACCESS) $ 32,610,879 $ 32,527,548 $ 33,069,588 $ 33,716,121 $ 34,382,779 $ 166,306,915 Operations (Other) $ 317,059 $ 317,059 $ 317,059 $ 317,059 $ 317,059 $ 1,585,295

TOTAL EXPENSES $ 47,700,621 $ 38,059,257 $ 33,676,647 $ 47,658,180 $ 38,654,838 $ 205,749,543 Revenue Sources Capital Plan FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 Total FTA 5309 $ 6,083,364 $ - $ - $ 4,284,000 $ - $ 10,367,364 FTA 5307 $ 424,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 140,000 $ 1,540,000 $ 3,084,000 $ 7,188,000 CMAQ $ 6,887,984 $ 2,599,650 $ - $ 5,962,250 $ - $ 15,449,884 Local Sales Tax $ 1,377,335 $ 615,000 $ 150,000 $ 1,838,750 $ 871,000 $ 4,852,085

Total Capital Plan Funding $ 14,772,683 $ 5,214,650 $ 290,000 $ 13,625,000 $ 3,955,000 $ 37,857,333 Operating Plan FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 Total Passenger Fares (RIDE and ACCESS) $ 6,733,037 $ 6,909,513 $ 7,233,913 $ 7,588,444 $ 7,955,737 $ 36,420,644 Local Sales Tax $ 14,284,214 $ 15,439,538 $ 16,302,227 $ 15,102,633 $ 16,574,215 $ 77,702,827 Advertising $ 450,000 $ 477,405 $ 491,727 $ 506,479 $ 521,673 $ 2,447,284 Lease Income $ 462,500 $ 490,666 $ 505,386 $ 520,548 $ 536,164 $ 2,515,264 Misc Revenue $ 122,176 $ 58,350 $ 60,100 $ 61,903 $ 63,760 $ 366,289 State Contributions $ 514,135 $ 335,000 $ 335,000 $ 335,000 $ 335,000 $ 1,854,135 CMAQ $ 4,560,000 $ 5,080,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 $ 14,440,000 FTA Section 5307 (PM) $ 3,951,861 $ 4,121,085 $ 4,297,666 $ 4,463,657 $ 4,463,657 $ 21,297,926

Total Operating Plan Funding $ 31,077,923 $ 32,911,557 $ 30,826,019 $ 30,178,664 $ 32,050,206 $ 157,044,369 TOTAL REVENUES $ 45,850,606 $ 38,126,207 $ 31,116,019 $ 43,803,664 $ 36,005,206 $ 194,901,702 Net Income/(loss) $ (1,850,015) $ 66,950 $ (2,560,628) $ (3,854,516) $ (2,649,632) $ (10,847,841) Ending Cash Balance: Baseline $ 8,519,505 $ 8,586,455 $ 6,025,826 $ 2,171,310 $ (478,322) Option #1 - No Action; Improved Sales Tax $ 8,640,989 $ 8,988,870 $ 6,959,023 $ 3,903,752 $ 2,429,214 Option #2 -Sales Tax Reallocation FY 15 & 16 $ 8,519,505 $ 8,586,455 $ 6,025,826 $ 3,671,310 $ 2,521,678 Option #3 - 5% Program Cost Reduction FY 13 $ 8,519,505 $ 9,362,035 $ 7,602,189 $ 4,551,839 $ 2,710,065 note: FTA 5309 FY 2015 revenue is a projection only

As shown in Table 12, the annual deficits can be mitigated in at least three ways: 1) a sales tax transfer to offset the shortfall in any given year, 2) a 5 percent reduction in costs (service and/or administrative), or 3) if sales tax collections improve, there may not be a need to make any major changes to cover a shortfall.

P a g e | 8-5

8.4. Future Considerations

The current economy is both beneficial and detrimental to the RTC. The cost of fuel and the likely gradual increase in fuel costs over time will take a toll on the RTC’s operating budget, but the concomitant increase in ridership should help defray at least some of those costs by bringing in higher farebox revenue.

Crude oil prices are by far the most sensitive of global commodities to international political relations and conflicts. The depreciation of the U.S. dollar has also played a role in the cost of fuel. While prices have dropped substantially since their high at $130 a barrel in 2008, they can be expected to rise again and, over time, prices will rise even higher due to economic growth in China, India, Brazil, and the rest of the rapidly developing world.

Throughout the country, transit systems have experienced significant growth in ridership influenced to a large degree by higher fuel prices. During the first quarter of 2011, the RTC itself has seen an increase of 2 percent over the same period last year while deploying the same number of service hours. While not a major change, the expectation is that the percentage will increase if gas prices go up over the next five years and beyond. For planning purposes, the ridership forecast assumes an average of about 3 percent over that period.

It is also worth noting that while this SRTP does not identify the need for a fare increase, it is possible that the operating shortfall will precipitate a need to consider an increase to reduce the deficit. It is also anticipated that if the economy improves, there is a strong likelihood that prices will return to their normal slow inflationary growth pattern and that costs to deliver transit services will increase. Based on national trends related to employment and decisions by the Federal Reserve about national economic strategy, that would not be expected to occur for at least another two years.

P a g e | 8-6

Appendix A – Routing Changes Plan Route Descriptions

Based on the evaluation of the route system, individual routes or groups of routes were assessed from the perspective of improving the overall system productivity. Comparisons were made based on a review of the latest RTC travel forecasting model application to identify the demand for travel to between various origins and destinations within the Reno metro area. Each of the route discussions that follows shows a graphic of travel demand for aggregations of travel model TAZs indicated by color and arrows. The desire line graphics are followed by recommended route-specific changes and a comparison to the existing route structure.

Route 2/2s Route 2 connects downtown Reno and downtown Sparks, serving neighborhoods north of 4th Street and Prater Way. Stop-level ridership clusters west of Rock Boulevard. Making use of the distribution of demand, the RTC operates a short-turn (roadways: Oddie, Rock, Merchant, Sullivan) called Route 2s during AM and PM peak periods. The short-turn eliminates travel east of Rock Boulevard, focusing service on demand. The short routing also reduces the cycle time by approximately 1/3, from 90 minutes on Route 2 to 60 minutes on Route 2s. Table A-1 – Route 2/2s February 2011 Data

Ridership (Rank) Services Hours (Rank) Productivity (Rank) 51,680 (2) 1,605 (2) 32 P/RVH (7)

Table A-2 – Route 2 Hours of Operation

EXISTING PROPOSED Begin 4:30am 4:00am 30 minutes between 4:30am and 7:15pm 30 minutes Weekday Headway 60 minutes between 8:15pm and 1:50am 60 minutes End 1:50am (next operating day) 10:00pm Begin 4:30am 4:00am 30 minutes between 4:30am and 7:15pm 30 minutes Saturday Headway 60 minutes between 8:15pm and 1:50am 60 minutes End 1:50am (next operating day) 10:00pm Begin 4:34am 4:00am Sunday Headway 60 minutes 60 minutes End 1:50am (next operating day) 10:00pm

P a g e | A-7

Table A-3 – Route 2s Hours of Operation

Weekday Begin 6:47am, 2:00pm Eliminated Headway 30 minutes End 9:51am, 5:49pm

Route 2 Option Opportunities may exist to improve Route 2, by removing some of the out of direction travel and focusing on ridership patterns. It is proposed that Route 2s be eliminated while Route 2 turns south on Rock Boulevard en route to Centennial Plaza. This routing will focus on existing ridership patterns as illustrated in Figure Existing Route 2. Pyramid Way will be covered by new service. An extension of Route 2 east on Greenbrae, ending at Baring and Vista, is proposed for future study. A key component of the study extension will be the evaluation of a park & ride operated under the Shared Use Parking Program (SUPP). The property identified for outreach is located at the D’Andrea Market Place, a retail power center on the corner of Vista and Baring.

P a g e | A-8

Figure A-1 – Proposed Route 2

P a g e | A-9

Routes 3, 4 and 11 Route 3 performs neighborhood circulator operations in the Kings Row area with service originating from 4th Street Station in downtown. RTC has matched service levels to ridership patterns so well that Route 3 ranked one place behind RAPID for productivity in February 2011. Route 4 ranked just behind Route 3. As outlined earlier in the document, the design team was sure not to overlook potential improvements when a route is well performing. While Route 3 performs a large one-way loop, Route 4 operates a two-way trunk and loop. Given the potential of this area, and the presence of a large one- way loop (which is in conflict with proposed route design standards), Routes 3 and 4 are identified for improvement. Stop-level ridership is evenly distributed throughout the routes and both routes perform similarly based on service provided, making these routes candidates for consolidation.

Route 11 is the fastest and most direct link between 4th Street Station and Centennial Plaza. Traveling only 3.2 miles in under 15 minutes, Route 11 is also the fastest route in the RTC system –surpassing even the RAPID. While 4th Street Station and Centennial Plaza are logical termini, stop-level ridership on Route 11 is distributed along 4th Street to locations other than the terminals. Stop activity is clustered in two general sections of the route: (1) between 4th Street Station and 6th Street on 4th Street; and, (2) along Prater Way between Galletti Way and Centennial Plaza. Table A-4 – Route 3 February 2011 Data

Ridership (Rank) Services Hours (Rank) Productivity (Rank) 21,281 (10th) 578 (13th) 37 P/RVH (5th)

Table A-5 – Route 4 February 2011 Data

Ridership (Rank) Services Hours (Rank) Productivity (Rank) 15,459 (14th) 477 (17th) 332 P/RVH (6th)

Table A-6 – Route 11 February 2011 Data

Ridership (Rank) Services Hours (Rank) Productivity (Rank) 51,563 (3rd) 1,329 (6th) 39 P/RVH (3rd)

P a g e | A-10

Table A-7 – Route 3 Hours of Operation

EXISTING PROPOSED Begin 5:15am 5:00am Weekday Headway 60 minutes 60 minutes End 10:05pm 10:00pm Begin 5:15am 5:00am Saturday Headway 60 minutes 60 minutes End 10:05pm 10:00pm Begin 6:15am 6:00am Sunday Headway 60 minutes 60 minutes End 7:05pm 7:00pm

Table A-8 – Route 4 Hours of Operation

EXISTING PROPOSED Begin 5:06am Eliminated Weekday Headway 60 minutes End 11:35pm Begin 6:06am Saturday Headway 60 minutes End 9:35pm Begin 6:06am, 2:45pm Sunday Headway 60 minutes End 10:35am, 9:35pm

P a g e | A-11

Table A-9 – Route 11 Hours of Operation

EXISTING PROPOSED Begin 4:15am 4:00am 20/45 minutes between 4:15am-6:15am 15-20 minutes 15 minutes between 6:15am-7:15pm 30 minutes Weekday Headway 30 minutes between 7:15pm-11:15pm 60 minutes 60 minutes between 11:15pm-2:27am End 2:27am (next operating day) 12:00am Begin 4:15am 4:00am 15 minutes between 6:15am-9:15am, 30 minutes 1:45pm-6:45pm 60 minutes 30 minutes between 5:15am-6:15am, Saturday Headway 9:15am-1:45pm, 6:45pm-10:15pm 60 minutes between 4:15am-5:15am, 10:15pm-2:27am End 2:27am (next operating day) 12:00am Begin 4:15am 4:00am 30 minutes between 5:15am-9:15pm 30 minutes Sunday Headway 60 minutes between 4:15am-5:15am, 60 minutes 9:15pm-2:26am End 2:26am (next operating day) 12:00am

Routes 3, 4 and 11 Options Figure 4.4 suggests that the Downtown/Glendale/Greg employment corridor (the Employment Belt) is a major destination for persons living in this area. Opportunities exist to consolidate service between Routes 3&4 and extend that service into the Employment Belt during peak hours – creating one route, with no loop and a one-seat-ride into the Employment Belt.. Note: there is no reduction in service in this area. For example, Kings Row between 7th and McCarran (existing Route 3) currently has 60 minute service and maintains this. Similarly, 7th between Keystone and McCarran (existing Route 4) retains its service level as well. This pattern of each section of the two routes maintaining its service level continues throughout the alternative, resulting in no loss of service and a reduced potential for the route to overload, exceeding RTC load factor goals. Maintaining the current service level only reduces the chance of an overload because the improved route is anticipated to attract additional ridership.

Route 11 performs very well, ranking 3rd out of 26 routes for both productivity and passenger demand. However, because of the very short trip distance between 4th Street Station and Centennial Plaza, is not uncommon for Route 11 to spend 50 percent of its trip time in layover at Centennial Plaza as it waits for the appropriate departure time on its interline-route (Route 21, 25 or 26). These recoveries are built into the schedule and counted as revenue service and this time would be more productive outside of a layover. With this in mind, it is proposed that Route 11 extend west to 4th\Keystone; with a branch, Route 11a, that extends west on 4th Street to McCarran where it will turn north and service Sky Mountain.

P a g e | A-12

Figure A-2 – Kings Row Travel Patterns

The separation of the Sky Valley service from the Kings Row service recognizes that, in this area, I-80 acts as a natural barrier. North of I-80, it is proposed that Routes 3 & 4 are consolidated while retaining all existing service. The proposed Route 3 operates a one-way loop, as before. However, two points on the route will “pinch” the loop and create two-way service at these locations. These points are located at 7th/McCarran and Robb/Mae Anne. These locations may coincide with two properties identified for the Shared Use Parking Program being conducted by the RTC. South of I-80, Route 3 service will be covered by an extension of Route 11, called Route 11a.

P a g e | A-13

Figure A-3 – Proposed Route 3 and 11

P a g e | A-14

Route 5 and Route 15 Routes 5 and 15 operate in a general north-south fashion from Sun Valley and TMCC to their southern terminus at 4th Street Station in downtown. Route 15 connects Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC) and 4th Street Station. Stop-level ridership on Route 5 is concentrated in Sutro corridor, particularly south of Wedekind, with additional high ridership clusters along Route 5’s northern loop. Stop-level ridership on Route 15 is concentrated in three main parts of the route: TMCC, the Northtowne Shopping Center and along Sutro.

Table A-7 – Route 5 February 2011 Data

Ridership (Rank) Services Hours (Rank) Productivity (Rank) 34,503 (7th) 812 (9th) 43 P/RVH (1st)

Table A-8 – Route 15 February 2011 Data

Ridership (Rank) Services Hours (Rank) Productivity (Rank) 30,862 (2nd) 726 (10th) 43 P/RVH (4th)

Table A-9 – Route 5 Hours of Operation

EXISTING PROPOSED Begin 5:00am 5:00am 30 minutes between 5:00am-6:21pm 30 minutes Weekday Headway 60 minutes between 6:15pm-1:05am 60 minutes End 1:05am (next operating day) 10:00pm Begin 5:15am 5:00am Saturday Headway 60 minutes between 60 minutes End 1:06am (next operating day) 10:00pm Begin 5:15am 5:00am Sunday Headway 60 minutes between 60 minutes End 1:06am (next operating day) 10:00pm

P a g e | A-15

Table A-10 – Route 15 Hours of Operation

EXISTING PROPOSED Begin 5:45am 5:00am 30 minutes between 5:45am-5:45pm 30 minutes Weekday Headway 60 minutes between 5:45pm-11:36pm 60 minutes End 11:36pm 10:00pm Begin 5:45am 5:00am Saturday Headway 60 minutes between 5:45am-11:36pm 60 minutes End 11:36pm 10:00pm Begin 5:45am 5:00am Sunday Headway 60 minutes 60 minutes End 10:36pm 10:00pm

Routes 5 and 15 Future Study While Routes 5 and 15 perform very well, evidence from the Washoe RTC travel demand model suggests that Sun Valley to the Glendale/Greg employment corridor travel patterns outweigh those from Sun Valley to downtown.

Figure A-4 – Route 5 Future Study

P a g e | A-16

Route 15 also performs very well and its permanent connection to TMCC and 4th Street Station is imperative. While opportunities may exist to integrate Routes 5 and 15, the benefits of linking TMCC and 4th Street Station outweigh those of integrating Route 5 and Route 15. Therefore, no changes are proposed for Route 15. It is proposed for future study that Route 5 mimics regional travel patterns and extend into the Glendale/Greg employment corridor, providing one-seat-rides for those traveling to this area from Sun Valley.

P a g e | A-17

Figure A-5 – Proposed Further Study Routes 5 and 15

P a g e | A-18

Routes 6, 9 & 14 Route 6 operates in a general north-south fashion from downtown Reno, at 4th Street Station, in the north to its southern terminus at the Meadowood Mall transfer terminal. Route 6 serves south Reno, west of Virginia Street and the RAPID/CONNECT service. Stop-level ridership is generally concentrated in three sections of the route: downtown, Lakeside between Brinkby and Moana and the Firecreek Shopping Center.

Route 9 operates in a general north-south fashion from downtown Reno, at 4th Street Station, in the north to its southern terminus at the Meadowood Mall transfer terminal. Stop-level ridership tends to cluster on Neil Road, Harvard Way and the Kuenzli/2nd couplet. Neil Road is difficult to serve because a north-south route (Route 9) must deviate from its general direction and travel west on Moanna before continuing south on Neil. Furthermore, this movement creates a “forced transfer” from Route 9 to Route 6 for passengers wanting to continue south on Kietzke (a major north-south corridor).

Route 14 connects downtown (via 4th Street Station) and the employment area bounded by Mill/McCarran/Rock. Stop-level ridership is distributed evenly between downtown and Grand Sierra Resort but tends to cluster in the high employment area along Corporate Boulevard. Table A-11 – Route 6 February 2011 Data

Ridership (Rank) Services Hours (Rank) Productivity (Rank) 20,467 (11th) 829 (8th) 25 P/RVH (17th)

Table A-12 – Route 6 Hours of Operation

EXISTING PROPOSED Begin 4:32am 5:00am 30 minutes between 5:32am-8:32am, 30 minutes 3:02pm-5:32pm 60 minutes Weekday Headway 60 minutes between 4:32am-5:32am, 8:32am-3:02pm, 5:32pm- 10:45pm End 10:45pm 10:00pm Begin 5:32am 6:00am Saturday Headway 60 minutes 60 minutes End 9:45pm 9:00pm Begin 6:24am 7:00am Sunday Headway 60 minutes 60 minutes End 4:32am 8:00pm

Table A-13 – Route 9 February 2011 Data

Ridership (Rank) Services Hours (Rank) Productivity (Rank) 41,024(5th) 1,514 (4th) 27 P/RVH (14th)

P a g e | A-19

Table A-14 – Route 9 Hours of Operation

EXISTING PROPOSED Begin 4:06am 5:00am 30 minutes between 4:06am-7:00am 15 minutes 15 minutes between 7:00am-9:45am, 30 minutes 2:15pm 5:15pm 60 minutes Weekday Headway 30 minutes between 9:45am-2:15pm, 5:15pm-6:45pm 60 minutes between 6:45pm-1:11am End 1:11am (next operating day) 10:00pm Begin 5:45am 5:00am 30 minutes between 5:45am-8:45pm 30 minutes Saturday Headway 60 minutes between 4:04am-5:45am, 60 minutes 8:45pm-1:09am End 1:09am (next operating day) 10:00pm Begin 4:45am 5:00am 30 minutes between 6:45am-5:45pm 30 minutes Sunday Headway 60 minutes between 4:45am-6:45am, 60 minutes 5:45pm-1:12am End 1:48am (next operating day) 10:00pm

Table A-15 – Route 14 February 2011 Data

Ridership (Rank) Services Hours (Rank) Productivity (Rank) 29,756 (9th) 930 (7th) 32 P/RVH (8th)

P a g e | A-20

Table A-16 – Route 14 Hours of Operation

EXISTING PROPOSED Begin 5:15am 5:00am 15 minutes between 6:15am-8:15am, 15 minutes 1:45pm-3:45pm 30 minutes 30 minutes between 8:15am-1:45pm, 60 minutes Weekday Headway 3:45pm-6:15pm 60 minutes between 5:15am-6:15am, 6:15pm-1:06am End 1:06am (next operating day) 10:00pm Begin 5:15am 5:00am Saturday Headway 60 minutes 60 minutes End 12:27am (next operating day) 10:00pm Begin 6:15am 6:00am Sunday Headway 60 minutes 60 minutes End 11:27pm 10:00pm

Route 6, 9 and 14 Option It is proposed that Routes 6, 9 & 14 be rerouted as illustrated by Figure A-6. There are two main reasons for this proposed restructure. First, passengers traveling on Kietzke (a major north-south corridor) through Moana must transfer between Routes 6 & 9 in order to keep traveling on the same roadway. Second, the change in routing on Route 9 would offer passengers close service to the Firecreek Crossing shopping center as well as new service to an employment complex in the vicinity of McCarran and Talbot. . For these changes, a “westward” routing shift must simultaneously occur on Routes 6, 9 & 14. Route 6 moves off Kietzke to serve locations west of Virginia Street; Route 9 moves off Neil Road to continue south on Kietzke; and, Route 14 develops a branch (Route 12) to cover Neil Road. In the northern portion of these routes, it is proposed that Route 14/Route 12 use the Kuenzli/2nd Couplet instead of Route 9; while Route 9 uses Mill. Additionally, the use of the Grand Sierra Hotel entrance from 2nd by Routes 14/12. This routing option would ease “lost time” challenges in serving the Grand Sierra Hotel and Resort by eliminating in/out duplicative service.

P a g e | A-21

Figure A-6 – Routes 6, 9 and 14 Option

P a g e | A-22

Route 7 and 17 Routes 7 and 17 operate in a general north-south fashion from north valleys (Stead and Lemmon Valley) to their southern terminus at 4th Street Station in downtown. Stop-level ridership on Route 7 is evenly distributed throughout the route; stop-level ridership on Route 17 tends to cluster in Lemon Valley, UNR and transfer locations for Route 7. While these routes provide similar geographic service, Route 17 operates hourly with Route 7 operating every 30 minutes. Their performances differ substantially. Route 7 ranks 6th out of 26 routes for ridership, 5th place for service hours and 16th for productivity. However, Route 17 ranks 18th out of 26 routes for ridership, 12th in service hours and 24th for productivity.

Table A-17 – Route 7 February 2011 Data

Ridership (Rank) Services Hours (Rank) Productivity (Rank) 35,892 (6th) 1,380 (5th) 26 P/RVH (16th)

Table A-18 – Route 17 February 2011 Data

Ridership (Rank) Services Hours (Rank) Productivity (Rank) 8,939 (18th) 616 (12th) 15 P/RVH (24th)

Table A-19 – Route 7 Hours of Operation

EXISTING PROPOSED Begin 4:45am 5:00am 30/60 minutes between 4:45am-6:15am 30 minutes Weekday Headway 30 minutes between 6:15am-8:15pm 60 minutes 60 minutes between 8:15pm-1:48am End 1:48am (next operating day) 10:00pm Begin 4:45am 5:00am 30/60 minutes between 4:45am-6:15am 30 minutes Saturday Headway 30 minutes between 6:15am-8:15pm 60 minutes 60 minutes between 8:15pm-1:48pm End 1:48am (next operating day) 10:00pm Begin 5:15am 5:00am Sunday Headway 60 minutes 60 minutes End 1:48am (next operating day) 10:00pm

P a g e | A-23

Table A-20 – Route 17 Hours of Operation

EXISTING PROPOSED Begin 5:26am 5:00am Weekday Headway 60 minutes End 10:54pm 10:00pm Begin 6:26am 5:00am Saturday Headway 60 minutes End 8:55pm 10:00pm Begin 6:26am 5:00am Sunday Headway 60 minutes End 8:55pm 10:00pm

Routes 7 & 17 Options Route 7 serves a good deal of passenger boardings, more than 35,000 in February 2011, and was ranked 6th out of 26 routes for passenger demand. However, Route 7 is also in the top five routes in terms of revenue service hours. Currently, passenger demand on Route 7 is not sufficient to cover its allocated service hours at a rate greater than 26 P/RVH. Consequently, Route 7 ranks 16th out of 26 routes for productivity. There are two options aimed at increasing productivity on Route 7, reduce service hours or increase ridership. Again, evidence from the Washoe RTC travel demand model (Figure ) suggests that Stead residents follow the same general weekday AM travel pattern as other areas, sending the majority of their trips into the Downtown/2nd/Glendale/Greg corridor (Employment Belt). It is proposed that Route 17 be absorbed into Route 7 and for Route 17’s service hours be used to fund an extension of Route 7 into the Glendale/Greg employment corridor. South of Sky Vista, Route 17 is replaced by Route 7. North of Sky Vista, service into Lemon Valley will be based on a property identified for the Shared Use Parking Program outreach. For illustrative purposes, the Lemmon Valley branch is show terminating at Lemmon Drive.

P a g e | A-24

Figure A-7 – Stead Travel Patterns

P a g e | A-25

Figure A-8 – Proposed Route 7 and 17

P a g e | A-26

Route 13 and Route 19 Route 13 serves central Reno in a north-south fashion along Kirman and Locust and east-west service along Grove, terminating with a loop at Grove and Harvard. Stop level ridership is evenly distributed along the route with significant clusters along 4th Street (the data shows other route activity as well), the VA Sierra Nevada Healthcare center between Locust and Kirman and individual locations on Grove and Harvard. After downtown service on Lake, Liberty and Ryland, Route 19 provides north-south service to central Reno along Wells and east-west service into the airport along Plumb. Ridership on Route 19 is low compared to its neighbors, RAPID and Route 13, and does not cluster in any particular location. Table A-21 – Route 13 February 2011 Data

Ridership (Rank) Services Hours (Rank) Productivity (Rank) 14,139 (15th) 481 (16th) 29 P/RVH (12th)

Table A-22 – Route 19 February 2011 Data

Ridership (Rank) Services Hours (Rank) Productivity (Rank) 5,427 (22nd) 237 (22nd) 23 P/RVH (19th)

Table A-23 – Route 13 Hours of Operation

EXISTING PROPOSED Begin 6:15am 6:00am Weekday Headway 60 minutes 60 minutes End 12:34am (next operating day) 10:00pm Begin 6:15am 6:00am Saturday Headway 60 minutes 60 minutes End 12:34am (next operating day) 10:00pm Begin 5:43am 6:00am 60 minutes between 5:43am-10:02am, 60 minutes Sunday Headway 2:15pm-7:02pm End 7:02pm 10:00pm

P a g e | A-27

Table A-24 – Route 19 Hours of Operation

EXISTING PROPOSED Begin 6:45am Eliminated Weekday Headway 60 minutes End 6:36pm Begin No Service Saturday Headway End Begin No Service Sunday Headway End

Route 13 & 19 Options Route 13 generally performs at the median, ranking 15th in ridership, 16th in service hours and 12th in productivity out of 26 routes. Route 19 performs well below this level, ranking 22nd in ridership, 22nd in service hours and 19th in productivity out of 26 routes. One component of the difference between these performances is the short walking distance from Route 19 to other routes with better service . The process by with one or more high-frequency routes attracts passengers from a near-by less frequent route, labeled “supercorridorism” by the design team, can result in the eventual elimination of the less frequent route through ridership attrition. Currently, the maximum walking time (on the road network) between Route 19 and any other route is approximately 9-10 minutes. The means passengers using a 60-minute route are less than 10 minutes walk to a 15-minute route. Given the incentive of 15-minute service, passengers likely forgo Route 19 in favor of a quick walk to better service. Figure 4.11 illustrates stop-level ridership and walking distances on routes within walking distance to Route 19.

P a g e | A-28

Figure A-8 – Route 13 and 19 Walking Distances

P a g e | A-29

Another component of Route 19’s performance is that service ends at 6:36 pm on weekdays and does not operate on weekends. Because of these reasons, it is proposed that Route 19 be eliminated until the Wells corridor has developed enough to support bus service frequent enough for its riders not to be drawn to other routes. Service to the airport will be performed by a restructured Route 13. In addition to serving the airport, the restructured Route 13 will serve the Kuenzli/2nd couplet after departing from 4th Street Station. Route 13 moves from 4th Street to the Kuenzli/2nd couplet because Sutro between 4th Street and Kuenzli lacks transit supportive land use and 4th Street is already saturated with service.

P a g e | A-30

Figure A-9 – Proposed Route 13 and Eliminated Route 19

P a g e | A-31

Route 16 Route 16 provides neighborhood collector service in the Idlewild area. This route performs at the system P/RVH, with a small allocation of service hours (Route 16 is 21st out of 26 routes for service supply). Stop-level ridership is evenly distributed along the route. While this route is small (1.6 percent of total system service hours), Route 16 performs well, ranking 10th out of 26 routes. Because of Route 16’s size and current performance, no changed are recommended.

Table A-25 – Route 16 February 2011 Data

Ridership (Rank) Services Hours (Rank) Productivity (Rank) 9,307 (17th) 307 (21st) 30 P/RVH (10th)

Table A-26 – Route 16 Hours of Operation

EXISTING PROPOSED Begin 5:15am 5:00am Weekday Headway 60 minutes 60 minutes End 10:38pm 10:00pm Begin 6:15am 5:00am Saturday Headway 60 minutes 60 minutes End 7:40pm 10:00pm Begin 6:15am 6:00am Sunday Headway 60 minutes 60 minutes End 7:40pm 10:00pm

P a g e | A-32

Route 18 and 28 Route 18 and 28 provide service to the Glendale/Greg employment corridor. However, performance measures for these routes differ substantially. Route 18 operates out of 4th Street Station in downtown and performs well in terms of ridership (13th out of 26 routes) and productivity (9th out of 26 routes). Route 28 operates out of Centennial Plaza in Sparks and does not perform well – ranking last place in ridership, service hours provided and productivity.

Table A-27 – Route 18 February 2011 Data

Ridership (Rank) Services Hours (Rank) Productivity (Rank) 17,502 (13th) 550 (14th) 32 P/RVH (9th)

Table A-28 – Route 28 February 2011 Data

Ridership (Rank) Services Hours (Rank) Productivity (Rank) 479 (Last Place) 80 (Last Place) 6 P/RVH (Last Place)

Table A-29 – Route 18 Hours of Operation

EXISTING PROPOSED Begin 5:15am 5:00am 30 minutes between 5:15am-9:15am, 60 minutes * 1:15pm-4:15pm Weekday Headway 60 minutes between 9:15am-1:15pm, 4:15pm-1:01am End 1:01am (next operating day) 10:00pm Begin 5:15am 5:00am Saturday Headway 60 minutes 60 minutes End 7:01pm 10:00pm Begin 6:15am 6:00am Sunday Headway 60 minutes 60 minutes End 6:01pm 10:00pm *If other routes serve the Glendale/Greg corridor

P a g e | A-33

Table A-30 – Route 28 Hours of Operation

Begin 5:30am Weekday Headway 60 minutes between 5:30am-7:30am, 3:30pm-5:13pm End 5:13pm Begin No Service Saturday Headway End Begin No Service Sunday Headway End

Route 18 and 28 Option Multiple alternatives directly serve the Glendale/Greg employment corridor (Route 3, Route 7, and Route 18). Routes 7, 3 and 18 will provide service from 4th Street Station to the Glendale/Greg corridor. The combined services results in 30 minute headways. Route 28 will be discontinued altogether, based on its existing limited service and low performance, but this connection to Centennial Plaza is retained by Route 54.

P a g e | A-34

Figure A-9 – Routes 18 and 28 Option

P a g e | A-35

Route 21, 25 and 26 Routes 21, 25 and 26 form the majority of transit service in Sparks. Routes 25 and 26 act as branches from a single Prater route, while Route 21 serves downtown Sparks and the Legend’s shopping mall as well as employment centers located southeast of Sparks Boulevard and Prater Way. All three routes are accomplished by vehicles from Route 11 though an interline. Table A-31 – Route 21 February 2011 Data

Ridership (Rank) Services Hours (Rank) Productivity (Rank) 10,475 (16th) 540 (15th) 19 P/RVH (21st)

Table A-32 – Route 25 February 2011 Data

Ridership (Rank) Services Hours (Rank) Productivity (Rank) 5,071 (23rd) 187 (25th) 27 P/RVH (14th)

Table A-33 – Route 26 February 2011 Data

Ridership (Rank) Services Hours (Rank) Productivity (Rank) 5,943 (21st) 348 (20th) 17 (23rd)

Table A-34 – Route 21 Hours of Operation

EXISTING PROPOSED Begin 4:35am 5:00am 60 minutes between 4:35am-6:20am, 30 minutes Weekday Headway 6:50pm-12:17am 60 minutes 30 minutes between 6:20am-6:50pm End 12:17am (next operating day) 10:00pm Begin 4:35am 5:00am 30 minutes between 6:20am-6:50pm 30 minutes Saturday Headway 45/60 minutes between 4:35am-6:20am, 60 minutes 6:50pm-11:17pm End 11:17pm 10:00pm Begin 5:45am 6:00am Sunday Headway 60 minutes 60 minutes End 10:15pm 10:00pm

P a g e | A-36

Table A-35 – Route 25 Hours of Operation

EXISTING PROPOSED Begin 6:35am See Route 99 Weekday Headway 60 minutes End 7:06pm Begin 6:35am Saturday Headway 60 minutes End 7:06pm Begin Sunday Headway No Service End

Table A-36 – Route 26 Hours of Operation

EXISTING PROPOSED Begin 5:20am 5:00am 45 minutes between 5:20am-6:05am 45 minutes Weekday Headway 60 minutes between 6:05-11:38pm 60 minutes End 11:38pm 10:00pm Begin 5:20am 5:00am 45 minutes between 5:20am-6:05am 45 minutes Saturday Headway 60 minutes between 6:05-10:38pm 60 minutes End 10:38pm 10:00pm Begin 6:05am 6:00am Sunday Headway 60 minutes 60 minutes End 9:38pm 10:00pm

Route 21, 25 and 26 Option Service to the Sparks area is proposed as illustrated in Figure 4.15. Route 25 is restructured as the north- eastern section of the proposed Route 99. With Route 25 off of Prater, Route 26 would be poised for significant increased in ridership and productivity – no change is proposed for Route 26. Route 21 is proposed to be restructured in a way that reduces the size of its existing one-way loop while providing two-way service to the employment complex located in the vicinity of Lillard/Boxington.

P a g e | A-37

Figure A-10 – Route 21, 25 and 26 Option

P a g e | A-38

Route 54 Route 54 connects Centennial Plaza and the Meadowood Mall transfer terminal with high density employment along Longley and Mill. Stop level ridership clusters around employment centers. No routing changes are proposed for Route 54 for two reasons. First, Route 54’s monthly revenue service hours are relatively small (377 RVH in February 2011) so the impact of Route 54 on system-wide measures of productivity are also small. Second, Route 54 connects important land uses with two major RTC fixed assets (Centennial Plaza and Meadowood Mall) and this role should remain in place. When local economic conditions improve, this route should follow. No changes to Route 54 are proposed. Table A-37 – Route 54 February 2011 Data

Ridership (Rank) Services Hours (Rank) Productivity (Rank) 8,636 (19th) 377 (19th) 23 P/RVH (18th)

Table A-38 – Route 54 Hours of Operation

EXISTING PROPOSED Begin 5:30am Weekday Headway 60 minutes End 7:23pm

Begin 6:30am No Change Saturday Headway 60 minutes End 6:23pm Begin 7:30am Sunday Headway 60 minutes End 6:23pm

P a g e | A-39

Route 56 and 57 Table A-39 – Route 56 February 2011 Data

Ridership (Rank) Services Hours (Rank) Productivity (Rank) 7,819 (20th) 444 (18th) 18 P/RVH (22nd)

Table A-40 – Route 57 February 2011 Data

Ridership (Rank) Services Hours (Rank) Productivity (Rank) 4,874 (20th) 222 (23rd) 22 P/RVH (20th)

Table A-41 – Route 56 Hours of Operation

EXISTING PROPOSED Begin 5:24am 5:00am 25/30 minutes between 5:24am- 60 minutes Weekday Headway 7:54am 60 minutes between 7:54am-10:22pm End 10:22pm 10:00pm Begin 5:24am 5:00am Saturday Headway 60 minutes 60 minutes End 8:26pm 10:00pm Begin 6:51am 6:00am Sunday Headway 60 minutes 60 minutes End 6:23pm 10:00pm

P a g e | A-40

Table A-42 – Route 57 Hours of Operation

EXISTING PROPOSED Begin 5:24am 5:00am 60 minutes between 5:24am-9:53am, 60 minutes Weekday Headway 2:24pm-8:53pm End 8:53pm 10:00pm Begin 5:22am 5:00am 60 minutes between 5:22am-9:51am, 60 minutes Saturday Headway 2:22pm-8:51pm End 8:51pm 10:00pm Begin 5:22am 6:00am 60 minutes between 5:22am-9:53am, 60 minutes Sunday Headway 2:22pm-6:53pm End 6:53pm 10:00pm

P a g e | A-41

Figure A-11 – Route 56 and 57 Option

P a g e | A-42

Figure A-12 – Route 99 Option

P a g e | A-43

APPENDIX B – Public Involvement

RTC Transit Systems Analysis Public Participation Plan November, 2010www.rtcplan2ride.com

1 - Introduction The purpose of the RTC Plan2Ride Public Participation Plan is to identify the strategy for effectively encouraging community participation for the Transit System Analysis. It is the objective of the study team to involve members of the general public, stakeholder groups, local businesses, transit customers and interested state and local government agencies in the decision-making process. A broad base of community input will contribute to the development of alternatives that provide the highest level of mobility within existing funding constraints. This Public Participation Plan establishes goals and objectives to ensure that Plan2Ride is a collaborative effort with the community it serves. The RTC recognizes that public participation is an essential element in planning its transit services and is committed to incorporating public comment opportunities during all aspects of the study. This Public Participation Plan is designed to engage a broad spectrum of stakeholders to ensure issues related to each category of stakeholder are heard and considered. 2 – Goals and Objectives Plan2Ride will provide the public with clear, relevant, timely and accurate information regarding the transit planning process in readily accessible formats. GOAL 1 Plan2Ride will continuously and actively seek public comment and provide meaningful opportunities for the public to participate in the development of alternatives for the final plan. Objective 1.1 Plan2Ride will develop and maintain an up-to-date database of contacts, including but not limited to: • Elected officials • Federal, state, and local government staff • Business owners • Civic groups • Health care centers • Disability advocacy groups and agencies • Transit riders who request information regarding Plan2Ridewww.rtcplan2ride.com

Page | 45

Objective 1.2 Plan2Ride will provide mail and/or e-mail distribution of notices of public participation opportunities to all persons on the contact list described in Objective 1.1 Objective 1.3 Plan2Ride will conduct all meetings of the RTC and its advisory committees in an open public forum in accordance with the State of Nevada Open Meeting Law. GOAL 2 Plan2Ride will provide clear, accurate, relevant information about transit planning process on a continuous basis. Objective 2.1 Plan2Ride will make all publications available to the public on the internet and in printed form at the RTC offices. Objective 2.2 Plan2Ride study team will be available by telephone, e-mail, and in person (within reasonable limits) to answer questions from the public, and will be available by request to make presentation to civic groups, other governmental agencies and other organized groups within the study area. Objective 2.3 A Plan2Ride website (www.RTCPlan2Ride.com) will be established and maintained, which will provide general information about the study, public participation meetings and opportunities, project updates and contact information. GOAL 3 Plan2Ride will ensure that public participation will be a continuous process from project kick-off, through alternatives development and final approval of the plan. Objective 3.1 Plan2Ride will actively assist the RTC in development and Implementation of this public involvement processes for improvements to its current transit network.www.rtcplan2ride.com GOAL 4 Plan2Ride will continuously work to refine and improve public participation in the study process. Objective 4.1 Ride2Plan staff will conduct an evaluation of each public participation strategy that is implemented at appropriate intervals during the study.

3 - Public Participation Strategies This section describes each strategy that Plan2Ride will use to implement this Public Participation Plan.

P a g e | A-46

3.1 Plan2Ride Website A website for Plan2Ride will be created and online prior to the first public meeting. Plan2Ride project information will be made available on the project website at www.rtcplan2ride.com. This website will also have a link on the RTC’s website. The website will include: • An overview of Plan2Ride • Project updates • Public meeting notices • Contact information • Public comment form • Current and recent newsletters • Selected presentations • Other project related information • Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s) www.rtcplan2ride.com

3.2 Social Media The social media portion of the Public Participation Plan has a twofold purpose. First, social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter offer an opportunity to drive traffic to the project website, as well as provide additional free promotion of public meetings and events. Second, the use of such outreach tools will allow for a more diverse audience being reached and may increase the likelihood of a younger demographic becoming involved. With any social media campaign it is essential to assess and engage the existing on-line “network infrastructure”. Tapping into other established pages and groups with many followers/subscribers will greatly assist in broadening the reach of the social network for Plan2Ride. Social Media is a beneficial and relatively new tool for public engagement. The benefits of utilizing social media in conjunction with traditional public meetings, flyers, mailers, etc., is that the on-line forum offers a venue for citizens to offer comments and get information that is not dependant on time or place. For example, often time’s public meetings are held in early evening hours. This time would not be conducive for engaging swing or graveyard shift workers, which is a dominant trait in this community. Social media provides an outlet that attempts to capture the comments of these individuals who, more often than not, could be left out of the traditional public process. A Plan2Ride Twitter account will be established to promote events and broadcast general project updates. Up front work will be done to make key connections with other Twitter users with well established accounts and large numbers of followers. These established users will be utilized to “re - tweet” key messages to broaden the reach of our message and develop a diverse following for Plan2Ride. Additionally, Twitter has very interesting opportunities for live chatting by utilizing hash tags. A hash tag of #plan2ride will be used in all correspondence made by the project team. This will allow for

Page | 47

cataloguing and grouping of comments within Twitter, as well as being able to display live comments during public meeting events.www.rtcplan2ride.com Additionally, a Plan2Ride Facebook Page will also be created. The Facebook page will offer individuals the opportunity to receive information on events, offer comments, and be directed to the project website when updates occur. Facebook posts on the Plan2Ride page will also be posted on other community and media oriented pages in the Truckee Meadows (i.e. City of Reno, City of Sparks, local loggers, etc.). This again will broaden the reach of the project message to more individuals. Further, Facebook provides an advertising service that can be targeted to specific people via special parameters. Upon the request of RTC staff, this may be an opportunity to greatly increase the likelihood of Plan2Ride messages being seen by a greater number of Facebook users. For example, by targeting individuals on Facebook that indicate either “Reno” or “Sparks” as their hometown will broadcast advertisements to over 197,000 Facebook users. Comments received by the above avenues will be catalogued and provided to the project team. Responses to comments may either be addressed in a public forum or by private email. 3.3 Contact List A Plan2Ride contact list will be maintained and updated throughout the project. Information may be sent to individual lists or to the entire list, depending on the specific communication. Individual citizens may be added to the list upon request. The contact list will be used to notify interested parties of project updates and public involvement opportunities. 3.4 Press Releases Public involvement meetings and releases of project recommendations will be announced in press releases to local print and broadcast media. Press releases will be coordinated by the RTC’s Marketing and Communications Director. 3.5 Public Meetings Public Meetings generally provide the public with an opportunity to provide direct input to the planning process, usually through exercises that involve marking up maps to identify problems, issues, and suggested actions and/or listing issues and desired improvements to the transportation system. Depending on the specific issues and needs involved, staff will conduct 3 public meetings to communicate information and receive input and comments. Public meetings will be structured in an open-house format where various issues regarding the project will be on display. Project staff will be on hand where one on one interaction will answer questions and encourage public comment. Interactive exhibits may be used to gauge priorities and issues regarding the existing and future transit network. It is anticipated that each public meeting will occur at different milestones during the study: www.rtcplan2ride.com • Meeting #1 – This will occur early on in the study to introduce the project to interested and affected stakeholders and invite public comments to identify issues and potential solutions • Meeting #2 – This meeting will occur towards the middle of the project to introduce conceptual alternative service plans and solicit feedback

P a g e | A-48

• Meeting #3 – This meeting will be held towards the end of the project to present the Draft Short Range Transit Plan to the public and solicit comment. 3.6 Stakeholder Group Meetings Plan2Ride staff will hold up to three (3) stakeholder meetings to serve as an informal, conversational forum for relationship building and information sharing between the RTC and affected stakeholders. Plan2Ride staff will coordinate with the RTC to target specific stakeholders when adequate milestones have been met during the course of the study. RTC may use one or more of its subcommittee meetings to fulfill this task. 3.7 RTC Advisory Committee Meetings Plan2Ride staff will meet with and make presentations to the RTC’s advisory committees. These presentations will be designed to share information specific to each committee and gather any comments and/or concerns. RTC staff will determine the targeted meetings for these presentations to ensure the information provided will be relevant and timely. 3.8 RTC Board Meeting As the study progresses, updates will be presented to the RTC Board to provide information, answer any questions and receive feedback. At the conclusion of the study, findings will be presented to the board for approval. 3.9 Fact Sheets Fact sheets will be developed to summarize information about the project in a very brief (generally one page) document. The fact sheets will include a basic overview of the project, project timeline/milestones, contact information and website addresses for the project and social media efforts. 3.10 Flyers Flyers will be developed to announce public meetings for the study. These flyers will be distributed by the RTC on transit vehicles and at transit centers. They will also be distributed electronically to the project stakeholders list as well as the general project mailing list. 3.11 Comment Forms A standard Plan2Ride comment form will be made available at public presentations and meetings, and will be available electronically on the web. Comment forms may also be developed and targeted for each public meeting to garner feedback on the subject matter presented. Comments will be summarized and available to the public on the project website and presented in the final report of the study. 3.12 Northern Nevada Transportation Summit The Northern Nevada Transportation Collaborative (NNTC) will host the 2010 Sustainability Summit on December 13 and 14, 2010 at the University of Nevada, Reno. The purpose of the Summit is to serve as a technical platform for transportation infrastructure professionals to engage in a dialogue regarding the condition, direction and options available to continue moving the region forward in a sustainable manner.

Page | 49

Its secondary purpose is to establish a process and begin a reasoned dialogue on transportation, livability, and economic prosperity to benefit the region. Using resources from the private sector, public gencies, the general public, elected/government officials, and the University of Nevada, Reno, the 2010 Sustainability Summit (through the NNTC) will broaden the foundation for enhanced planning, design, and integration of sustainable transportation. The Plan2Ride team will participate in this summit to present information on the study, participate in panel discussions and identify networking opportunities to learn about innovative transit practices from a broad spectrum of transit professionals.

P a g e | A-50

Results of Public Outreach Events

Page | 51

P a g e | A-52

Page | 53

Page | 55

P a g e | A-56

Page | 57

P a g e | A-58

Page | 59

P a g e | A-60

Page | 61

P a g e | A-62

Page | 63

APPENDIX C – FTA Regulations on Reduced Fares

49 USC Chapter 53, Section 5307 (d)(1)(D)

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access

[www.gpoaccess.gov]

[Laws in effect as of January 3, 2007]

[CITE: 49USC5307]

[Page 174-183]

TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION

SUBTITLE III--GENERAL AND INTERMODAL PROGRAMS

CHAPTER 53--PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Sec. 5307. Urbanized area formula grants

(d) Grant Recipient Requirements.--A recipient may receive a grant in a fiscal year only if--

(1) the recipient, within the time the Secretary prescribes,

P a g e | A-64

submits a final program of projects prepared under subsection (c) of

this section and a certification for that fiscal year that the

recipient (including a person receiving amounts from a chief

executive officer of a State under this section)--

(A) has or will have the legal, financial, and technical

capacity to carry out the program, including safety and security

aspects of the program;

(B) has or will have satisfactory continuing control over

the use of equipment and facilities;

(D) will ensure that elderly and handicapped individuals, or

an individual presenting a medicare card issued to that

individual under title II or XVIII of the Social Security Act

(42 U.S.C. 401 et seq., 1395 et seq.), will be charged during

non-peak hours for transportation using or involving a facility

or equipment of a project financed under this section not more

than 50 percent of the peak hour fare;

49 CFR 609.23

[Code of Federal Regulations]

[Title 49, Volume 6]

[Revised as of October 1, 2003]

From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access

Page | 65

[CITE: 49CFR609.23]

[Page 27-28]

TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION

TRANSPORTATION

PART 609--TRANSPORTATION FOR ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED PERSONS--Table of Contents

Sec. 609.23 Reduced fare.

Applicants for financial assistance under section 5307 of the

Federal transit laws (49 U.S.C. Chapter 53), must, as a condition to receiving such assistance, give satisfactory assurances, in such manner and form as may be required by the Federal Transit Administrator and in accordance with such terms and conditions as the Federal Transit

Administrator may prescribe, that the rates charged elderly and handicapped persons during non-peak hours for transportation utilizing or involving the facilities and equipment of the project financed with assistance under this section will not exceed one-half of the rates generally applicable to other persons at peak hours, whether the operation of such facilities and equipment is by the applicant or is by another entity under lease or otherwise.

P a g e | A-66

[41 FR 18239, Apr. 30, 1976, as amended at 61 FR 19562, May 2, 1996]

FTA C 9030.1C, Chapter V, Sections 5.f and 5.g

Chapter V: Requirements Associated with Urbanized Area Formula Grants

(5) CERTIFICATIONS PARTICULAR TO THE URBANIZED AREA FORMULA PROGRAM.

Section 5307 (d)(1) lists 16 elements to which a grant applicant applying for Urbanized Area Formula Program funds must certify. In the paragraphs below, the elements are identified and a brief discussion follows. The elements are collected in Appendix G in Category XII.

(f) Rates Charged Elderly and Persons with Disabilities During Non-peak Hours.

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. Section 5307(d)(1)(D), the grant applicant must certify that the rates charged the elderly and persons with disabilities during nonpeak hours for fixed-route transportation using facilities and equipment financed with Federal assistance from FTA "will not exceed one-half of the rates generally applicable to other persons at peak hours, whether the operation . . . is by the applicant or by another entity under lease or otherwise."

(g) Rate Charged Person Presenting a Medicare Card.

Also in accordance with 49 U.S.C. Section 5307(d)(1)(D), the grant applicant must certify that it will give the half-fare rate described in paragraph f above to any person presenting a Medicare card issued to that person pursuant to Title II or Title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq., 1395 et seq.).

FTA Technical Guidance FY2010 – 14 Half Fares

14. HALF FARE

BASIC REQUIREMENT

During non-peak hours for fixed route service supported with Section 5307 assistance, fares charged elderly persons, persons with disabilities or an individual presenting a Medicare card will not be more than half the peak hour fare.

AREAS TO BE EXAMINED

Page | 67

1. Half Fare During Non-Peak Hours

2. Half Fare for Persons with a Medicare Card

3. Subrecipient, Contractor and Lessee Oversight

REFERENCES

1. 49 USC Chapter 53, Federal Transit Laws

2. 49 CFR Part 609, “Transportation for Elderly and Handicapped Persons”

3. FTA Circular 9030.1C, “Urbanized Area Formula Program: Grant Application Instructions”

Half Fare 14-1 FY2010

QUESTIONS FOR THE REVIEW

1. Does the grantee allow elderly persons, persons with disabilities, and persons with a Medicare card to pay, during the off peak hours, one half the fare generally paid during the peak hours?

2. What is the grantee’s full fare? What is the half fare? During what hours are half fares available (all hours or off-peak hours only)? Are there any fixed route services not included in the half fare program?

EXPLANATION

For fixed route service funded with Section 5307 assistance, grantees must allow 1) elderly persons, 2) persons with disabilities, and 3) Medicare cardholders to ride fixed route services during off peak hours for a fare that is not more than one half the base fare charged other persons during the peak hours. The requirement applies to base fares. Though many do, grantees are not required to offer half fares on payment options such as monthly passes. If there are services such as neighborhood circulator and shuttle services with fares that are different from the grantee’s fare for its regular local service, separate half fares are needed for each type of service. The requirement is applicable to:

• All fixed route services (including route deviation services and service to sporting events) that operate in both peak and off peak hours and use or involve facilities and equipment financed with Section 5307 funds, whether the services are provided by the grantee directly, by a contractor, by a subrecipient, or by another entity that leases facilities and/or equipment from the grantee

• Any express and commuter service that operates beyond peak hours

P a g e | A-68

• Fixed route services for which the grantee has not defined peak hours

This requirement is not applicable to:

• Demand responsive services

• Services that operate only during peak hours, such as express and commuter routes

• Services that operate only in the off-peak hours (e.g., lunchtime circulators and weekend routes to sporting events)

• Services funded with other FTA assistance that do not use Section 5307 funded equipment or not operated out of Section 5307 funded facilities “Elderly” by FTA regulations is to “at a minimum, include all persons 65 years of age or over.” Grantees are permitted to use a definition that extends this fare to younger (e.g., 62 and over) persons. Persons with disabilities are defined by FTA as persons “who by reason of illness, injury, age, congenital malfunction, or other incapacity or temporary or permanent disability (including any individual who is a wheelchair user or has semi-ambulatory capabilities), cannot use effectively, without special facilities, planning, or design, mass transportation service or a mass transportation facility.” The definition of Medicare cardholder is self-explanatory. This is a distinct half fare requirement, though many grantees choose to use a Medicare card as proof of eligibility for the elderly and persons with disabilities half fare (see questions and discussion below). Though most Medicare cardholders are elderly (age 65 or older), a Medicare card can be issued to anyone under 65 years of age who has received Social Security or Railroad Retirement Board disability benefits for 24 months or is a kidney dialysis or kidney transplant patient. The grantee determines its peak hours. Peak hours can be seasonal. If the grantee determines it is not large enough, or demand is not strong enough, to identify or justify peak hour service, then its entire service should be defined as "off-peak.” In this instance, the grantee has two options:

• Review ridership data and determine the peak ridership hours and develop a policy for half fare, or

• Choose not to determine a peak period and offer half fares during all hours.

REFERENCE

49 USC Chapter 53, Section 5307 (d)(1)(D)

49 CFR 609.23

FTA C 9030.1C, Ch. V, Sections 5.f and 5.g

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

The reviewer will examine the grantee’s general public information that presents its fare structure. Common examples are the system map, pocket timetables, signs within the system

Page | 69

(e.g., decals on fareboxes, signs in stations, and car cards on vehicles) and the website. Other sources are brochures describing the fare structure and the reduced fare program, and application forms for the reduced fare program or special ID cards. Documents such as fare policies/tariffs and internal policy memoranda may describe the program. If the grantee limits half fares to off peak hours, the reviewer will verify that the definition of “off peak” is reasonable. For example, if the grantee has both peak and off peak fares in its overall fare structure, the off peak time periods for the general public and the half fare program should be defined consistently. The times should be consistent with the hours reported to NTD. The review will ensure that the grantee has not limited acceptance of a Medicare card to seniors only.

DETERMINATION If the grantee charges more than one half the peak hour fare during off peak hours, the grantee is deficient. If the grantee does not provide a half fare for a service that should be included, the grantee is deficient.

SUGGESTED CORRECTIVE ACTION

If the grantee does not have a half fare program during non-peak hours on all of its applicable services, the grantee will be directed to implement a program or ensure that such a program is implemented and submit documentation to the FTA regional office. If the fare is more than one half the full fare, the grantee will be directed to provide a plan and schedule for correcting its half fare program to the FTA regional office.

P a g e | A-70

APPENDIX D – Existing Service Headways

Weekday Headway (Minutes) Non-Weekday/Saturday Headway (Minutes) Route Off-Peak Peak Off-Peak Peak RTC RAPID 10 10 12 12 RTC CONNECT 60 30 60 30 2 60 30 60 30 2s 30 30 N/A N/A 3 60 60 60 60 4 60 60 60 60 5 60 30 60 60 6 60 30 60 60 7 60 30 60 30 9 60 15 60 30 11 60 15 60 15 13 60 60 60 60 14 60 15 60 60 15 60 30 60 60 16 60 60 60 60 17 60 60 60 60 18 60 30 60 60 19 60 60 N/A N/A 21 60 30 60 30 25 60 60 60 60 26 60 45 60 45 28 60 60 N/A N/A 54 60 60 60 60 56 60 25 60 60 57 60 60 60 60 RTC INTERCITY 88 60 N/A N/A

Page | 71

APPENDIX E – GAIN OVER BASE ANALYSIS (GOBA)

Given the RTC’s trend away from cash usage toward pass usage, a better understanding of pass pricing and utilization may offer insights into opportunities for increased revenue generation. The Gain Over Base Analysis (GOBA) seeks to compare the base-fare price unit of a given pass price with the passenger trips per pass unit sold. A critical assumption of this analysis is that when purchasing something from a schedule of items a major factor in the purchaser’s decision is the price in the schedule. For example, an adult non-disabled month pass, in FY04, sold for $60. In terms of the base fare for that passenger category, the monthly pass was 40.0 times the one-way cash fare – meaning that a month pass was price-equivalent to 40 base fare rides. But, on average, each month pass sold resulted in 49.9 linked passenger trips (72.9 total boardings). This usage results in an average of 9.9 linked trips taken for free.

Table A3.1 lists the results of the GOBA for the adult non-disabled passenger category. The lowest gain over base was for the 2-ride pass type. The linked trips per unit figure for this pass, 1.8, suggests that users of this pass did not, on average, use the two rides allocated to that stored ride pass. This finding may not be unusual because these passes are used by public agencies for short-term client needs. As such, these passengers do not spend their own money on the pass and may not feel an obligation to fully use the resource. Other trips per unit and gains over base are listed in the table. The linked trips per unit figure for the cash fare category was 1.0 with 1.4 total boardings, suggests that approximately 40 percent of these riders utilize a transfer as part of their journey. The same statistic for the 10 Ride pass category, 9.0 linked trips per unit with 13.1 total boardings, suggests that 30 percent of these passengers make a transfer (see: A Note about Transfers, Error and Data Reporting).

TABLE A3.1 – Adult Non-Disabled FY04 GOBA

Linked Base Unlinked Gain Mean Adjusted Passenger Linked Fare Passenger Price Units Sold over Fare Revenue* Trips Trips/Unit Price Trips base (t=46%) Units 2 Ride 28,146 $1.92 $53,938 $2.70 19,977 19,285 1.0 1.8 -0.8 3 Day 19,985 $1.09 $21,862 $10.00 2,186 13,693 6.3 6.7 -0.4 Pass Cash 2,681,479 $1.08 $2,891,154 $1.50 1,927,436 1,837,265 1.0 1.0 0.0 10 Ride 158,367 $1.03 $163,605 $13.50 12,119 108,508 9.0 9.0 0.0 Pass 7 Day 240,698 $0.97 $232,921 $18.00 12,940 164,919 12.7 12.0 0.7 Pass 31 Day 948,370 $0.82 $780,622 $60.00 13,010 649,794 49.9 40.0 9.9 Pass 40 Ride 80,847 $0.81 $65,137 $50.00 1,303 55,394 42.5 33.3 9.2 Pass 24 Hour 226,333 $0.73 $165,274 $4.00 13,011 155,076 3.8 2.7 1.1 Pass 4,384,225 $1.00 $4,374,513

Page | 73

The mean fare impact of a fare type can be estimated through the GOBA. To illustrate the mean fare impact estimate, if one adult non-disabled cash passenger trip occurred for each fare purchased (i.e., transfers had to be paid at the base fare and the estimated design trips per unit sold would be 1) then the mean fare for this group would be $1.50, the base fare in FY04. But, the trips per unit for adult non- disabled cash users was 1.4. The resulting impact is essentially the mean fare impact of free transfers and is calculated as: 1.50(1.4 − 1) $0.42 = 1.4 × 1

The GOBA suggests that while the Adult Non-Disabled and Youth Non-Disabled passenger groups faced similar costs for a month pass in FY04, the Youth Non-Disabled passenger group utilized far fewer month passes (7.3 percent of all youth unlinked trips, compared to 21.5 percent for the Adult Non-Disabled group). This could mean that Youth Non-Disabled passengers place a higher value on minimizing their initial cash outlay for fare media and that Adult Non-disabled passengers travel more often. Also, the Youth Non-Disabled passengers using month passes averaged a gain over base of only 15.6 unlinked trips for each month pass sold – meaning this group has the least impact on mean fare for month passes.

These results suggest that Youth Non-Disabled month pass fares could be reduced further with a relatively low impact to system mean fare with the potential for increased sales.

TABLE A3.2 – Youth Non-Disabled FY04 GOBA

Linked Base Unlinked Gain Mean Adjusted Passenger Linked Fare Passenger Price Units Sold over Fare Revenue* Trips Trips/Unit Price Trips base (t=46%) Units Cash 446,751 $0.90 $401,843 $1.25 321,474 306,006 1.0 1.0 0.0 10 Ride 27,941 $0.75 $20,961 $11.25 1,863 19,138 10.3 9.0 1.3 Pass 40 Ride 46,589 $0.53 $24,498 $40.00 612 31,911 52.1 32.0 20.1 Pass 2 Ride 53,120 $0.84 $44,600 $2.25 19,822 36,385 1.8 1.8 0.0 24 Hour 46,567 $0.65 $30,268 $3.00 10,089 31,896 3.2 2.4 0.8 Pass 7 Day 16,391 $0.88 $14,367 $15.00 958 11,227 11.7 12.0 -0.3 Pass 31 Day 50,443 $0.90 $45,338 $50.00 907 34,551 38.1 40.0 -1.9 Pass 3 Day 2,089 $0.83 $1,742 $7.50 232 1,431 6.2 6.0 0.2 Pass 689,890 $0.85 $583,618

P a g e | A-74

TABLE A3.3 – Senior / Disabled FY04 GOBA

Linked Base Unlinked Gain Mean Adjusted Passenger Linked Fare Passenger Price Units Sold over Fare Revenue* Trips Trips/Unit Price Trips base (t=46%) Units 2 Ride 1,919 $1.02 $1,963 $1.35 1,454 1,315 0.9 1.8 -0.9 Cash 545,093 $0.72 $390,919 $0.75 521,225 373,622 0.7 1.0 -0.3 3 Day 10,371 $0.49 $5,099 $5.00 1,020 7,108 7.0 6.7 0.3 Pass 24 Hour 133,859 $0.48 $63,745 $2.00 31,872 91,751 2.9 2.7 0.2 Pass 10 Ride 55,708 $0.47 $26,185 $6.75 3,879 38,184 9.8 9.0 0.8 Pass 7 Day 67,756 $0.44 $30,033 $9.00 3,337 46,442 13.9 12.0 1.9 Pass 40 Ride 61,583 $0.41 $25,491 $25.00 1,020 42,210 41.4 33.3 8.1 Pass 31 Day 1,000,401 $0.34 $338,286 $26.00 13,011 685,702 52.7 34.7 18.0 Pass 1,876,690 $0.47 $881,722

TABLE A3.4 – Senior / Disabled FY04 GOBA with Cash Revenue = $280,107 (Actual Linked Cash*Fare)

Linked Base Unlinked Gain Mean Adjusted Passenger Linked Fare Passenger Price Units Sold over Fare Revenue* Trips Trips/Unit Price Trips base (t=46%) Units 2 Ride 1,919 $1.02 $1,963 $1.35 1,454 1,315 0.9 1.8 -0.9 Cash 545,093 $0.51 $280,107 $0.75 373,476 373,622 1.0 1.0 0.0 3 Day 10,371 $0.49 $5,099 $5.00 1,020 7,108 7.0 6.7 0.3 Pass 24 Hour 133,859 $0.48 $63,745 $2.00 31,872 91,751 2.9 2.7 0.2 Pass 10 Ride 55,708 $0.47 $26,185 $6.75 3,879 38,184 9.8 9.0 0.8 Pass 7 Day 67,756 $0.44 $30,033 $9.00 3,337 46,442 13.9 12.0 1.9 Pass 40 Ride 61,583 $0.41 $25,491 $25.00 1,020 42,210 41.4 33.3 8.1 Pass 31 Day 1,000,401 $0.34 $338,286 $26.00 13,011 685,702 52.7 34.7 18.0 Pass 1,876,690 $0.47 $881,722

Page | 75

TABLE A3.4 – Month Pass Usage and GOBA by Passenger Type

Passenger Type FY04 Month Pass Share of Month Passenger Type % Passenger Type PAX Pass PAX of All Ridership* GOB Adult Non-Disabled 948,370 47.4% 59.1% 10.7 Youth Non-Disabled 50,443 2.5% 9.3% 15.6 Senior/ Disabled 1,000,401 50.0% 25.3% 42.2 *Not including CitiLift

Transfers, Error and Data Reporting The GOBA was done using ridership and revenue data for FY04 that was used in the RTC 2006 Fare Study. This dataset and timeframe was used because it was the best and most recent reliable information available. To remove transfers, the GOBA was attempted with linked ridership data via an all-passenger transfer rate. While transfers are explicitly counted for cash fare passengers, pass rider transfers are not counted because pass holding customers are required to swipe their passes for each additional boarding in lieu of requesting a transfer. So, to arrive at linked passenger trips for all fare types, an estimate of the propensity of any given passenger to transfer was estimated.

The total number of transfers was 1,290,358. Transfers are not trips themselves, but rather extensions to trips when the passenger requires a second boarding and when that passenger uses a fare type that calls for the issuance of a paper transfer. Fare types that call for the issuance of a paper transfer are cash fares and all stored ride passes, totaling 2,946,394 in FY04. An important distinction is between the transfer itself and the linked trip that it appends. This is true for Flow Through, as well, since a passenger “flowing through” one route to another during an interline has already had the trip counted during the first boarding. This is simply a discussion of linked versus unlinked passenger trips. When estimating the probability that a given passenger will transfer, the sample-space is all passengers that CAN transfer, and the number of transfers is a characteristic of passengers within that sample . Table A3.5 outlines the estimate. Table A3.5 – FY04 Estimate of p(Transfer) and p(FlowThrough) in the RTC System

Total Transfers 1,290,358 Transfer Capable Linked Trips 2,946,394 p(Transfer) 44% +/- 0.006% (95% CI) Total Flow Through 110,562 Flow Through Capable Linked Trips 5,725,102 p(FlowThrough) 2% +/- 0.001% (95% CI)

In the RTC system, a passenger has a 44 percent chance of needing a transfer to complete a journey and a 2 percent chance that journey will require riding a vehicle through an interline point. This finding is not surprising given the hub and spoke network design of the transit network.

P a g e | A-76

Omitting flow-through for illustrative purposes, Figure A3.1 graphically illustrates the unknown nature of transfers, or “The Transfer Problem”. The population space is all passengers, divided into Adult, Youth and Senior/Disabled. While this distribution is unknown, its estimate is robust due to the large number of identifiable passenger boardings – only transfers are missing from this estimate. Superimposed on the total passenger boarding space is the subset of all ridership that is capable of taking a transfer – namely, cash boardings and all stored ride pass use. Finally, transfers are superimposed onto the transfer capable subspace; but, at present, no information is available on the distribution of transfers among passenger types. All that is known is that, based on the sample of transfer-capable boardings, the chance that any passenger will transfer is 44 percent. This is significant because transfers account for over a fifth of all boardings. In FY04, transfers amounted to over 1.2 million boardings that were allocated among passenger groups – based solely on the distribution of transfer-capable passenger-type boardings. FIGURE A3.1 – Graphical Interpretation of “The Transfer Problem”

All Boardings All Boardings Adult Youth Adult Youth

Transfer Capable Boardings

S/D S/D

All Boardings Adult Youth

Transfer Capable Boardings

Transfers

S/D

To arrive at linked trips for the GOBA, transfers were removed from all fare types, including transfer incapable pass boardings or period passes. With no knowledge of the true distribution of transfers among passenger types, it was assumed that (1) all fare types transfer at a rate of 44 percent and that (2) all passenger types transfer at this rate. The second assumption is used by RTC transit division when allocating transfers for data reporting; the transfers are equally allocated but weighted by ridership.

Page | 77

Before continuing, the quality of the original data was gauged by comparing linked trip boardings (no transfers) from two sources: the ridership reports and a revenue-based method. The revenue-based method involved dividing the revenue for cash boardings in each passenger category by the appropriate fare for that group. This should result in the number of cash boardings without transfers – linked trips. These estimates for linked boardings were compared to the number of boardings from the ridership reports before transfers and flow through were added – again, linked trips. Table A3.6 lists the results from this comparison. The estimates for adult non-disabled and youth non-disabled differ from one another by only 5 percent and are acceptable. However, the estimate for the senior/disabled group and CitiLift are 28 percent and -15 percent respectively and are not acceptable. Table A3.6 – Linked PAX by Passenger Type: Ridership versus Revenue Based method

FY04 Linked Cash PAX* - FY04 Linked Cash PAX* - Passenger Type Ridership Based Revenue Based % delta Adult Non-Disabled 1,837,241 1,927,436 5% Youth Non-Disabled 306,096 321,474 5% Senior/Disabled 373,476 521,225 28% CitiLift 67,954 59,083 -15% *After Flash Pass Redistribution

Given the results in Table A3.6, the effort to extract transfers from all ridership data was abandoned. Without further research into the ridership and revenue reporting practices used by the RTC, quality analysis of the fare structure is virtually impossible. This is because the revenue and the estimation of linked trips are the foundation of any analysis of pass use and pass use is the fastest growing component of the RTC’s fare media. It is important to understand that the error uncovered in Table A3.6 could be accounted for by either ridership reporting or revenue reporting or a combination of both. .

P a g e | A-78