Sacramento Area Council of Governments
Transportation Committee February 1, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. SACOG Rivers Rooms, 1415 L Street, Suite 300, Sacramento, CA
The Transportation Committee may take up any agenda item at any time, regardless of the order listed. Public comment will be taken on the item at the time that it is taken up by the committee. We ask that members of the public complete a request to speak form, submit it to the clerk of the committee, and keep their remarks brief. If several persons wish to address the committee on a single item, the chair may impose a time limit on individual remarks at the beginning of the discussion. Action may be taken on any item on this agenda.
Roll Call: Directors Crews, Holmes, Peters, Sander, Saylor, Slowey, Vasquez, Veerkamp, Vice Chair Joiner, Vice Chair Suen, Chair Cabaldon, and Ex-Officio Member Benipal
Public Communications: Any person wishing to address the committee on any item not on the agenda may do so at this time. After ten minutes of testimony, any additional testimony will be heard following the action items.
Action: 1. Minutes from November, 2017, Transportation Committee Meeting (Mr. Carpenter) 2. Support for Caltrans Statewide Safety Performance Management Targets (Mr. Ballard- Rosa) 3. Transportation Committee Charge (Mr. Carpenter) 4. Senate Bill 1 Congested Corridors Program: SACOG Support Nominations (Mr. Carpenter) 5. Big Data Pilot Project (Mr. Gao) 6. Unmet Transit Needs Findings for Sacramento Regional Transit District, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba Counties, and the Cities Therein (Ms. VaughanBechtold) 7. FY 2018/19 Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants (Ms. Sprowls)
Information: 8. 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy: Update and Look Ahead (Mr. Holtzen) 9. Civic Lab Update (Mr. Porter) 10. Next Generation Transportation Demand Management (Ms. Bradbury) 11. Request to Change Scope of Work for West Sacramento Riverfront Street Extension Project (Mr. Chew)
Other Matters
Adjournment
Transportation Committee Page | 2
Next committee meeting: March 1, 2018
This agenda and attachments are available on SACOG’s website at www.sacog.org. SACOG is accessible to the disabled. As required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Federal Rules and Regulations adopted in implementation thereof, a person who requires a modification or accommodation, auxiliary aids or services in order to participate in a public meeting, including receiving this agenda and attachments in an alternative format, should contact SACOG by phone at 916-321-9000, e-mail ([email protected]) or in person as soon as possible and preferably at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. Parking is available at 15th and K Streets.
Transportation Committee Meeting Date: 02/01/18 Agenda Item No.: 2018-February-1
Subject: Minutes from the November 2, 2017, Transportation Committee Meeting
Action Consent Information R&F Report Workshop Prepared by: Jessica Lee Approved by: Matt Carpenter Attachments: Y N
1. Issue: Should the Transportation Committee approve the November 2, 2017, meeting minutes?
2. Recommendation: Approve the minutes of the meeting as submitted.
3. Background: The Transportation Committee met on November 2, 2017.
4. Discussion/Analysis: The minutes of the November 2, 2017, meeting are attached for approval by the Transportation Committee.
5. Fiscal Impact/Grant Information: None. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment – November Minutes SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES The SACOG Transportation Committee met on November 2, 2017 in the Rivers Rooms on the Third Floor of the Meridian Plaza Building, located at 1415 L Street, Sacramento, CA, at 10:00 a.m.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Sander called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.
ROLL CALL: Present: Directors Clerici, Cabaldon, Holmes, Hansen (for Steinberg), Peters, Saylor, Spokely, Veerkamp, Vice Chair Slowey, Vice Chair Joiner, Chair Sander and Ex-Officio Member Flournoy (for Benipal) Absent: None
Public Communication: Jeff Tardaguila, an advocate for Disability Organizing Group for Initiating Total Equality, Sacramento Transit Riders Unit, California Alliance for Retired Americans and Older Women’s League, spoke in favor of the I-80/Watt Light Rail Station Elevator being accessible to the public. Lynne Goldsmith, a public citizen, commented on unmet transit needs in the region.
1. Minutes of the November 2, 2017, Meeting
Upon motion by Director Holmes, seconded by Director Spokely, the Transportation Committee unanimously approved the minutes as submitted.
2. 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) Update: Policy Framework and Regional Growth Projections
Upon motion by Director Clerici, seconded by Director Hansen, the Transportation Committee unanimously recommended that the SACOG Board of Directors adopt a Policy Framework for the 2020 MTP/SCS update that establishes 2040 regional projections and uses an economic prosperity lens to explore policy questions, research, and analysis focused on three main topic areas: (1) future uncertainties, (2) economic development and opportunity, and (3) a performance-based investment strategy.
3. Adoption of the 2018 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP)
Upon motion by Director Veerkamp, seconded by Director Holmes, the Transportation Committee unanimously recommended that the SACOG Board of Directors authorize staff to: (1) Submit the RTIP to the California Transportation Commission (CTC), (2) negotiate and execute any necessary Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with project sponsors; and, prepare the required changes to the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP).
Transportation Committee Minutes November 2, 2017 Page 2
4. Smart Region Sacramento: Transportation Technology Action Plan
Upon motion by Director Cabaldon, seconded by Director Hansen, the Transportation Committee unanimously recommended that the SACOG Board of Directors: (1) authorize SACOG to release a Request for Proposals (RFP) for consultant services for Smart Region Sacramento: Transportation Technology Action Plan at a not-to-exceed amount of $80,000; and (2) authorize the SACOG CEO to negotiate and award a contract with the selected consultant.
5. Programming Tier II Projects from 2015 Regional Flexible Funding Round
Committee members directed staff to revise scoring criteria and guidelines to prioritize projects that emphasize innovation, and that will teach us something new.
Upon motion by Director Hansen, seconded by Director Veerkamp, the Transportation Committee unanimously recommended that the SACOG Board of Directors: (1) approve the TDM Mini-Grant Program; and (2) approve the release of the Request for Grant Applications, to include the direction noted above.
6. Allocation of Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) Funds
Upon motion by Director Holmes, seconded by Vice-Chair Joiner, the Transportation Committee acted on the authority delegated by the Board at its October 18, 2017, meeting to: (1) approve $3,347,585 in unallocated regional 2014-2015 PTMISEA funds to be programmed for the following three SRTD capital projects: Community Shuttles- $2.47 million, Automatic Passenger Counters- $0.7 million, and Fare Vending Machines- $0.6 million; (2) reprogram $64,132 of SRTD’s unspent PTMISEA funds for Non-Revenue Vehicles- Bucket Truck; and (3) authorize SACOG to submit the allocation requests to Caltrans by the November 8, 2017, deadline.
7. SB 1 Transit State of Good Repair (SGR) Funds
Upon motion by Director Peters, seconded by Director Holmes, the Transportation Committee unanimously recommended that the Board: (1) authorize staff to allocate new regional FY 2017/18 State of Good Repair funds to eligible transit operators on a population-based formula, as recommended by the Transit Coordinating Committee (TCC); and (2) authorize the Strategic Planning Committee to make a recommendation to the Board for its meeting on January 18, 2018, on the final SGR transit project list to submit to Caltrans for funding.
Transportation Committee Minutes November 2, 2017 Page 3
8. Connect Card Contract Amendment for LTK Engineering Services
Upon motion by Vice-Chair Slowey, seconded by Director Hansen, the Transportation Committee unanimously recommended that the Board: (1) approve Amendment #11 to the LTK Engineering Services contract for a not-to- exceed of amount of $129,168; (2) direct staff to add this amount to an updated LTK Engineering Services purchase order for a new grand total of $1,508,243; and (3) authorize the CEO to execute an agreement with the Sacramento Regional Transit District (SRTD) for the reimbursement of the incurred costs.
9. Update on SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target Re-setting
The Transportation Committee received and reviewed this report, presented by Mr. Griesenbeck, SACOG staff.
10. Sacramento Regional Transit District (SRTD) Update
The Transportation Committee received and reviewed this report, presented by Mr. Henry Li, Sacramento Regional Transit District General Manager and Chief Executive Officer.
11. 2018 SACOG Work Plan
The Transportation Committee received and reviewed this report, presented by Mr. Corless, SACOG Chief Executive Officer.
Other Matters:
The meeting was adjourned at 12:13 p.m. Transportation Committee Meeting Date: 02/01/18 Agenda Item No.: 2018-February-2
Subject: Support for Caltrans Statewide Safety Performance Management Targets
Action Consent Information R&F Report Workshop Prepared by: Garett Ballard-Rosa Approved by: Matt Carpenter Attachments: Y N
1. Issue: Recent federal law requires states and metropolitan regions to establish annual targets under a series of performance measures.
2. Recommendation: That the Transportation Committee recommend that the Board: (1) approve as SACOG's 2018 targets the five statewide safety performance targets set by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to meet federal requirements; and (2) authorize the CEO to execute the necessary addendum to SACOG's Memorandum of Understanding with Caltrans.
3. Background: The most recent federal transportation bills require state departments of transportation to set and report on progress towards a series of annual performance measurement targets related to safety, air pollution emissions, infrastructure condition, freight movement, congestion, and reliability. Safety is the first performance measure to move through federal rulemaking.
Pursuant to this federal regulation, Caltrans has set five statewide annual Safety Performance Management targets for 2018, as reflected in Table 1 below.
Table 1. 2018 California Statewide Safety Performance Targets Performance Measure Target Percent Reduction (5 year rolling avg) (2017 to 2018) Number of Fatalities 3,591 -7.7% Rate of Fatalities (per 1.029 -9.5% 100M VMT) Number of Serious Injuries 12,823 -1.5% Rate of Serious Injuries 3.831 -3.4% (per 100M VMT) Number of Non-Motorized 4,271 -10% Fatalities and Non- Motorized Severe Injuries Transportation Committee Page | 2
Source: SACOG compilation of Caltrans Safety Performance Management Targets for 2018. Non-rate targets rounded to nearest integer.
4. Discussion/Analysis: Safety Target-Setting With the statewide targets set, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) are required by February 27, 2018, to establish targets for the same five safety performance measures for all public roads within the MPO planning area, and to report these targets to the state. To do so the MPO can either: (1) support the state targets by agreeing to plan and program projects that contribute toward the accomplishment of the state safety targets, or (2) create and commit to a quantifiable target for each performance measure in their metropolitan planning area.
SACOG staff coordinated with Caltrans, local partners, and staff at other MPOs during the development of the state safety performance management targets. Staff recommends that SACOG support the five 2018 state safety targets, consistent with the recommendation of fellow MPOs in in California. We will also need to execute an addendum to our Memorandum of Understanding with Caltrans to demonstrate that SACOG integrates performance goals, objectives, measures and targets into our planning and programming activities. To support the State’s targets, we will be utilizing available data on fatalities and serious injuries to identify potentially beneficial projects in our planning and programming activities moving forward.
Progress on Targets Failure of the state to demonstrate meaningful progress toward meeting a target could result in federal limits on the flexibility the state has for directing federal transportation dollars to state priorities. In other words, if Caltrans does not meet its safety targets, it may be required to allocate more funding from discretionary uses towards safety projects and programs. There are no consequences defined in federal law for MPOs failing to meet performance targets, though the state may decide in the future whether and how to hold regions accountable for making progress towards the targets. As safety is the first target, and this is the first year of target setting, it is still not clear how (if at all) this might unfold in practice. Through conversations with Caltrans, staff believes any changes would be at the macro or statewide scale.
Future Target-Setting Following the adoption of the safety targets, the process turns to the next federal performance measures: maintenance and system performance. Attachment A describes the critical dates for both the state and MPOs in these performance measures. Staff will provide ongoing updates on how SACOG plans to proceed with developing and monitoring federal performance targets.
5. Fiscal Impact/Grant Information: This item has no fiscal impact on the agency. Transportation Committee Page | 3
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment
Attachment
State Target MPO Target SACOG Staff Due Due Contact
Safety
Number of Fatalities
Rate of Fatalities per 100 million VMT
Number of Serious Injuries Garett August 2017 February 2018 Ballard-Rosa Rate of Serious Injures per 100 million VMT
Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and Non- motorized Serious Injuries
Maintenance
State Asset Management Plan June 2019 TBD
Percent of National Highway System (NHS) bridged in Good condition October 2018 March 2019 Percent of NHS bridges in Poor condition
% of Interstate pavement in Good condition Clint Holtzen % of Interstate pavement in Poor condition November % of non-Interstate pavement in Good May 2018 condition 2018
% of non-Interstate pavement in Poor condition
System Performance
% of reliable person-miles traveled on the interstate
% of reliable person-miles traveled on the non-interstate NHS
% of Interstate system mileage providing for November Bruce reliable truck travel time May 2018 2018 Griesenbeck Total emission reductions by applicable pollutants under CMAQ program
Annual hours of peak hour excessive delay per capita
% of non-single occupancy vehicle travel
Sacramento Area Council of Governments Page 1 of 1 Transportation Committee Meeting Date: 02/01/18 Agenda Item No.: 2018-February-3
Subject: SACOG Transportation Committee Charge
Action Consent Information R&F Report Workshop Prepared by: Matt Carpenter Approved by: Matt Carpenter Attachments: Y N
1. Issue: The Draft Transportation Committee charge has been prepared for 2018.
2. Recommendation: This item is for information.
3. Background: None.
4. Discussion/Analysis: The committee charge is intended to provide a framework for the issues regarding transportation planning, funding, and services that may come forward to the Transportation Committee in 2018.
5. Fiscal Impact/Grant Information: There is no fiscal impact at this time.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment - SACOG Transportation Committee Charge Attachment
SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE CHARGE
Purpose: The Transportation Committee shall develop recommendations for the full SACOG Board of Directors relative to issues regarding transportation planning, funding, and services.
Activities: Activities of the committee may include but are not limited to:
. Providing recommendations to the Board of Directors on SACOG activities relating to transportation planning studies, projects and programs on travel modes that include roads, transit, bicycling and walking;
. Providing recommendations to the Board of Directors on SACOG activities relating to transportation finance activities, including revenue forecasting, project delivery, and the programming of federal, state, and local monies that flow through SACOG;
. Providing recommendations to the Board of Directors on SACOG activities relating to transportation operations and services, including the Connect Card, transportation demand management, smart mobility, and advanced transportation technologies including ITS, and connected and autonomous vehicles;
. In coordination with the Land Use & Natural Resources Committee, provide recommendations to the Board of Directors on SACOG activities relating to transportation air quality conformity;
. Providing recommendations to the Board to help implement the policies and strategies in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan & Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) and mitigation measures in the associated Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that involve a SACOG role;
. Providing recommendations to the Board to help coordinate transportation, air quality and land use issues within our region to ensure that all issues are considered in an integrated manner;
. Advising the Capitol Valley Regional Service Authority for Freeways and Expressways (SAFE) Board;
. Serving as a regional forum for discussing transportation planning and policy issues.
Membership: The current chair of the SACOG Board of Directors shall appoint the members of the Transportation Committee.
Term of Committee Members: Members of the Transportation Committee shall serve for a term of one year.
Officers: The current chair of the SACOG Board of Directors shall designate one of the committee members to serve as committee chair and one or two to serve as committee vice-chair. Transportation Committee Meeting Date: 02/01/18 Agenda Item No.: 2018-February-4
Subject: Senate Bill 1 Solutions for Congested Corridors Project Nominations
Action Consent Information R&F Report Workshop Prepared by: Matt Carpenter Approved by: Matt Carpenter Attachments: Y N
1. Issue: The 2017 Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) legislation created a competitive new transportation funding program that provides a funding opportunity for congested corridors in the SACOG region.
2. Recommendation: That the Transportation Committee recommend that the Board: (1) nominate that the eight projects identified in the staff report receive a nomination to apply for funding through the Senate Bill 1 Solutions for Congested Corridors Program; and (2) establish priority rankings, or tiers, of the nominated projects.
3. Background: The California Transportation Commission (CTC) released final guidelines for the 2018 SB 1 Solutions for Congested Corridors (SCC) Program. The first SCC Program covers four years (FY 2017-18 through FY 2020-21) and makes available $1 billion in funds statewide.
The new program requires Caltrans or an agency responsible for preparing a regional transportation improvement plan (RTIP) under Section 1457 of the Government Code. In the 4-county SACOG region (Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba counties), SACOG will nominate local agency projects. Any projects in El Dorado and Placer counties will be nominated separately.
The SCC program is intended to fund projects designed to reduce congestion in highly traveled congested corridors through improvements that also address community and environmental impacts. A stated priority in the SCC guidelines is to fund transformative projects that bring significant change to a community. Only the construction component of a project will be funded. While no match is required, the guidelines make it clear that it will help a project’s competitiveness.
4. Discussion/Analysis: SACOG released a call for SCC projects in December 2017. Eight projects have submitted a request for a SACOG Board nomination. Attachment A provides project details, while Attachment B illustrates the location of these projects. The projects: • Bridge Street Widening Project, City of Yuba City • Broadway Complete Streets - Phase 2, City of Sacramento Transportation Committee Page | 2
• Del Rio Trail, City of Sacramento • Interstate 5 Corridor Enhancement Project, Caltrans • Interstate 5 Corridor ZEB BRT & Connection to Airport, Sacramento Regional Transit • South Watt Avenue Improvement Project – Phase 1, Sacramento County • UCD Medical to UCD Electric Bus Capital Project – City of Davis and City of Sacramento • US 50 Corridor Multimodal Enhancement Project, Caltrans, and Sacramento Regional Transit
SACOG recommends all submitted SCC projects receive a nomination to apply for SCC funding if they are confirmed to be eligible. The SCC guidelines do not require a ranking of regional priorities, but it is staff’s understanding that the CTC will be asking regions for such priorities. Staff proposes to use the primary, secondary, and deliverability criteria from the SCC guidelines as the basis for the priority rankings. The recommended priority rankings will be provided directly to the Board as part of the final action on the nominations. Attachment C is the selection criteria excerpt from the SCC program guidelines.
5. Fiscal Impact/Grant Information: The eight SCC project nomination requests are for an estimated total of $166,461,000 in state funding.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Solutions for Congested Corridors (SCC) Program: Submitted Projects Attachment B - SACOG SCCP 2018 Projects Attachment C - SB1 Solutions for Congested Corridors Program: Selection Criteria Excerpt
Attachment A
Solutions for Congested Corridors (SCC) Program: Submitted Projects Anticipated Total Match & Match Lead Agencies Project Name Scope Summary Total Cost (Estimated) Total SCC Request Construction Timing Source Caltrans & Sac US 50 Corridor Widen existing segment of US 50 in Sacramento County to extend the existing HOV July 2020 – December $444,106,000 $109,311,000 $56,495,000 - Regional Transit Multimodal lanes in both directions of travel from Watt Avenue interchange to downtown 2024 Sacramento County Enhancement Sacramento I-5 interchange. This will reduce congestion on US 50, which is Measure A program & Project experiencing substantial recurring congestion during peak commute hours, and Transit and Intercity conform to the master HOV network plan. The project will also enhance the Light Rail Rail Capital Program system along this corridor to increase the frequency of service from every 30 minutes to every 15 minutes from Sunrise Blvd to downtown Folsom, which will provide a high frequency transit option and reduce congestion and VMT traveled on US 50 and connecting roadways, via the construction of track sidings to allow trains to pass. The Project will: improve mobility, provide an option for reliable peak period travel time, provide incentives for commuters to use buses, carpools, vanpools, or light rail for peak period travel, improve traffic operations by reducing congestion and travel time, extend the service life of the pavement, reduce maintenance expenditures, and minimize exposure of maintenance crews to live traffic.
Caltrans Interstate 5 Add HOV lanes from 1.0 mile north of Laguna Boulevard to US 50 interchange (PM 13.0 October 2018 – $314,265,000 $15,000,000 $15,000,000 - Corridor to PM 21.8) on northbound and southbound I-5 in Sacramento County. Northbound December 2023 Sacramento County Enhancement traffic during morning peak period and southbound traffic during afternoon peak Measure A program Project period are experiencing recurring congestion due to traffic demand and bottlenecks within project limit and are expected to increase in the future due to continued development around the corridor. In addition, auxiliary lanes will be constructed between Pocket Road and Florin Road in both directions of travel to create optimal transition distances that will prevent flow disruption. The project will decrease peak period delay and improve system reliability for general purpose lanes and HOV lanes user, and benefit transit ridership/ridesharing by providing less delay and more reliable traveling option, air quality is expected to improve due to decrease delay and decrease vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
City of Broadway Construct a road diet and protected bike lanes on Broadway between 16th Street and Advertise in $7,000,000 $6,250,000 $750,000 - impact fee Sacramento Complete Streets - SR 99. (The western half of the Broadway corridor is fully funded through construction December of 2019 funds and major Phase 2 and currently under design). Broadway is a heavily traveled 4-lane arterial that corresponding to state street construction tax parallels US50 and is regularly used as a cut-through route to access the freeways fiscal year 19-20. funds despite its pedestrian-scale commercial character. Average daily traffic of up to 21,980 has been measured on the corridor with a history of automobile crashes with pedestrian and bicycle at nearly every intersection within the last few years. Construction of the project is anticipated to reduce congestion up to 30% at some of the most heavily utilized intersections.
Page 1 of 4 Attachment A
Anticipated Total Match & Match Lead Agencies Project Name Scope Summary Total Cost (Estimated) Total SCC Request Construction Timing Source City of Del Rio Trail Construct a 4.5 mile shared use facility in South Sacramento by converting an Advertise in $13,000,000 $11,000,000 $2,000,000 - local Sacramento abandoned railroad corridor into a separated bikeway and path for all ages and December of 2020 measure funds. abilities. The existing abandoned rail corridor traverses through some of Sacramento's corresponding to state oldest and most dense neighborhoods and provides a direct route to business, fiscal year 20-21. commercial, and recreational destinations. The route directly parallels I-5 from south of Meadowview Road to north of Riverside Blvd and will provide an active transportation option for the residents to travel to the central business district and other destinations and thereby relieve congestion on the highly congested I-5.
Sacramento South Watt Construct capacity, congestion relief, safety, and multimodal improvements on South Begin construction in $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 - County Avenue Watt Avenue between Florin Road and SR 16, including widening South Watt Avenue Fall of 2020 Developer Fees, Improvement from 2 to 4 lanes with raised center medians, improving alignments, signal upgrades at Measure A Project, Phase I four intersections, installing Class II buffered bike lanes, pedestrian walkways/connections, ADA upgrades, deploying ITS components and integration, and rehabilitating the existing pavement. South Watt Avenue is a primary transportation corridor in southern Sacramento County with an average daily traffic volume of 23,000 vehicles and is a major access route to US 50 and the balance of the Watt Avenue corridor, which is one of the region's most heavily traveled routes. It also supports major industrial and commercial centers and goods movement to other major corridors. This road is currently an outdated rural-type roadway with one traffic lane in each direction and no accommodations for bicycles and pedestrians. There is heavy congestion on this roadway and LOS F conditions throughout the corridor. The project will return the corridor to an acceptable LOS (D or better), and sustain acceptable operating conditions for 10-20 years. The project will significantly reduce vehicle delay and improve travel time for all traffic in the South Watt corridor. The project is expected to reduce congested VMT in the corridor by up to 9 million vehicle miles per year.
Page 2 of 4 Attachment A
Anticipated Total Match & Match Lead Agencies Project Name Scope Summary Total Cost (Estimated) Total SCC Request Construction Timing Source Yolo County UC Med Ctr to Purchase (6) zero-emission electric buses, spare parts for electric buses, and requisite Begin operation with $5,796,000 $5,250,000 Assumes contribution UCD Electric Bus infrastructure upgrades to operate a UC Davis Medical Center Shuttle, which will CNG buses by from zero emission Capital Project mitigate traffic congestion along I-80 and U.S. 50 between Davis and Sacramento. The December, 2018. specific funding service would travel between the main UC Davis campus locations and the UC Davis Acquire electric buses sources (e.g., Electrify Medical Center in Sacramento. An existing shuttle service, using diesel buses, is and infrastructure by America, Cap & Trade) operated by UC Davis under a contract that is about to expire. YCTD has been asked to December, 2019 for charging propose scenarios where it transitions to operating the service. YCTD staff has been in infrastructure communication with the University to determine the priorities for the modified service, $546,000 utilizing zero emission electric buses. Service options include status quo, increased (doubled) service frequency, and minor modifications to route alignment and schedules. The District’s SCCP application is requesting $5,796,000 for six electric 40’ buses, electric bus spare parts and special tooling, and requisite charging infrastructure upgrades. Initial operating expenses are anticipated at approximately $700,000 annually for service equivalent to existing schedules. Operating costs would increase proportionally to the level of service increases preferred (increased frequency, additional stops in West Sacramento and/or downtown Sacramento, etc.). Operating costs would be covered primarily through contract with the University, and could vary based on the desired level of service frequency, though it is not anticipated that the project would not result in significant direct operational increases to YCTD.
Yuba City Bridge Street Widen existing Bridge Street roadway from 2 to 4 lanes with multimodal features and Ideally open before $13,500,000 $8,000,000 The City is willing to Widening Project raised landscaped median from Cooper Avenue to Gray Avenue. Bridge Street is a 2020 provide a local match major corridor running parallel to SR 20 and is one of the two Feather River crossings in of up to $5M, to the region. If either the SR 20 Feather River Bridge or the 5th Street Bridge experiences leverage the a traffic accident, the entire regional transportation system sometimes comes to a stop, maximum amount of as was seen with the potential grant funds. 2017 evacuations caused by the storms and deficiencies at the Oroville Dam. This widening will foster a safe transportation system for the movement of goods and people from SR 99, SR 70, and SR 20 by providing an alternate east-west corridor between Yuba City and Marysville, and Yuba and Sutter Counties. Along the corridor, with the replacement of the 5th Street Bridge this segment of roadway will be the only remaining two-lane section, warranting a reduced speed limit of 25 mph, creating significant congestion and encouraging vehicles to adjust their route choice.
Page 3 of 4 Attachment A
Anticipated Total Match & Match Lead Agencies Project Name Scope Summary Total Cost (Estimated) Total SCC Request Construction Timing Source Sac Regional Interstate 5 This project includes the purchase of 10 zero-emission electric buses and related July 2018 - January $10,000,000 $1,650,000 CARB vouchers Transit Corridor ZEB BRT charging infrastructure to operate bus rapid transit along I-5 between Sacramento and 2020 and Connection to Sacramento International Airport. The SacRT zero emission bus deployment project Sacramento Int'l includes the installation of 10 depot chargers for each electric bus. Vehicle model Airport considered for procurement will be selected from the California HVIP eligible vendors list. Eligible vehicles have already undergone extensive Altoona testing and have been successfully deployed at other transit agencies. SacRT plans to install the depot charging equipment during bus production. It is anticipated that the project will be ready to implement within 18 months of award.
$ 166,461,000.00
Page 4 of 4 Attachment B SACOG SCCP 2018 Projects
PROJECT: Bridge Street Widening Project JURISDICTION: Yuba City SPONSOR: Yuba City PROJECT: 10 Electric Buses on I-5 TOTAL COST: $13,500,000 JURISDICTION: City of Sacramento SPONSOR: Sac RT TOTAL COST: $10,000,000
PROJECT: US 50 Corridor Multimodal Enhancement Project JURISDICTION: City of Sacramento PROJECT: Broadway Complete Street Phase 2 SPONSOR: Caltrans JURISDICTION: City of Sacramento TOTAL COST: $444,106,000 SPONSOR: City of Sacramento TOTAL COST: $7,000,000
PROJECT: 6 Electric Buses on I-80, US 50 JURISDICTION: City of Sacramento SPONSOR: YCTD TOTAL COST: $5,796,000
PROJECT: South Watt Avenue Improvement Project-Phase 1 JURISDICTION: County of Sacramento SPONSOR: County of Sacramento TOTAL COST: $15,000,000 PROJECT: Del Rio Trail JURISDICTION: City of Sacramento SPONSOR: City of Sacramento TOTAL COST: $13,000,000
PROJECT: Interstate 5 Corridor Enhancement Project JURISDICTION: City of Sacramento SPONSOR: Caltrans TOTAL COST: $314,265,000 ± Attachment C SB1 Solutions for Congested Corridors Program: Selection Criteria Excerpt
11. Evaluation Criteria 11.1 Primary Evaluation Criteria The primary evaluation criteria will be based on how well a project meets the primary objective of the program of addressing congestion by making specific improvements designed to reduce congestion in highly traveled and highly congested corridors through performance improvements that balance transportation improvements, community impacts, and that provide environmental benefits. A project nomination shall include documentation regarding the quantitative and qualitative measures validating the project's consistency with identified policy objectives. Listed are the metrics to include in the application to help answer the criteria questions.
A. The project shall identify the extent of congestion in the corridor. What is the current state? How extensive is the problem (include a description of congestion on all modes)? What are the community and environmental impacts of the current situation? How much worse willthe problem get under the no-build environment?
• Existing person hours of delay • Existing personthroughput by mode • Existing vehicle hours of delay • Travel time reliability
B. Howwell will the proposed project addressthe problem? Does the project incorporate multiple modes? How is the solution balancing transportation, environment and community? Why is this solution the most beneficial improvement in the corridor? What improvements to other modes were considered and why were they not chosen? For highway and local road projects, the impact of induced demand should be considered and discussed.
• Changes in person hours of delay • Changes in person throughput by mode • Changes in vehicle hours of delay • Changes in mode choices • Changes in travel time reliability • Dedicated rights of way for bike and transit • Changes in vehicles miles traveled
1
Attachment C SB1 Solutions for Congested Corridors Program: Selection Criteria Excerpt
11.2 Secondary Evaluation Criteria Projects will also be evaluated based on the following co-benefits criteria:
A project nomination shall include documentation regarding the quantitative and qualitative measures validating the project consistency with identified co-benefits of the proposed project.
• Safety -What are the actual reported property, injury , and fatality collisions for the last 3 full years? How does the proposed project increase safety for motorized and non motorized users?
o Number of property, injury and fatal collisions expected to be avoided due to project implementation o Property, injury and fatal collisions per 100 million vehicle miles traveled expected to be avoided due to project implementation o Elements that support the enhancement of public safety and security such as secured bike parking, lightingfor transit projects, other crime prevention and safety measures
• Accessi bility- How will the proposed project improve accessibility for people that travel the corridor or need to travel through the corridor?
o Access to multimodal choices o Closing gaps in transit and active transportation o Connecting to jobs, major destinations and residential areas o Reliability of the system o First/last mile o Complete streets o Creation of networks of non-vehicle facilities that connects residential,recreational and employment
• Economic development and job creation and retention - How does the proposed project support eco·nomic development and access to employment? How does the proposed project improve regional competitiveness?
o Cumulative job access for all modes o Change in cumulative job access for communities (disadvantaged populations) o Improves freight throughput
• Air Quali ty & Greenhouse Gases - How will the proposed project reduce greenhouse gas emissions and criteria pollutants, and advance the State's air quality and climate goals? The California Air Resources Board will be consulted in the review of air quality benefits of the projects proposed for funding.
o Changes in GHG, criteria pollutant emissions and toxics );> Potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality by reducing airborne particulate matter; ground level ozone, toxic air 2
Attachment C SB1 Solutions for Congested Corridors Program: Selection Criteria Excerpt
contaminates,and other pollutants in the corridor as well as the localized area most impacted by the project o Other environmental benefits of the project
• Efficient l and use - How does the proposed project support transportation-effici ent land use principles?
o Supports mixed-use development with multimodal choices o Supports in-fill development o Supports interconnected streets and corridor access management policies o Addresses climate adaptation
11.3 Deliverability Criteria Projects will also be evaluated based on the following deliverability criteria: • Matching Funds -The project will be evaluated based on the amount of matching funds and the source of funds. Emphasis will be placed on projects that leverage funding from private , federal, state, local or regional sources that are discretionary funds to the nominating agency. Matching funds willonly be considered in the construction component. Other ,than State Transportation Improvement Program funds, matching funds will be limited to those funds not allocated by the Commission on a project basis. In each contract. the matching funds must be expended concurrently and proportionally to the Congested Corridors Program funds, except as noted below. Costs incurred prior to allocation will not be counted towards the match. The Commission may, at the time of programming or allocation,approve non-proportional spending. Adjustments will be made at project closeout to ensure matching funds were spent proportionally to the Congested Corridors Program funds. The implementing agency must provide a project funding plan through construction that demonstrates the supplemental funding in the plan (local,federal, state, private sources) is reasonably expected to be available and sufficient to complete the project . • Deliverability - Emphasis is placed on early delivery,therefore, projects with an early start construction date will be given higher priority.
• Collaboration -Jointly nominated andjointly funded projects are encouraged. For projects that cross jurisdictions, regions may pool their resources to jointly nominate and fund a project. Similarly,regional agencies may pool their resources to jointly nominate and fund projects with Caltrans.
• Cost Effectiveness - Consideration will be given to those projects that provide the greatest benefit in relationship to the project costs. The Commission will consider measurable benefits using the California Life Cycle BenefiVCost Analysis or an alternative proposed by the applicant.
3 Transportation Committee Meeting Date: 02/01/18 Agenda Item No.: 2018-February-5
Subject: Big Data Pilot Project
Action Consent Information R&F Report Workshop Prepared by: Shengyi Gao Approved by: Matt Carpenter Attachments: Y N
1. Issue: Should SACOG partner on pilot testing the use of big data for transportation planning?
2. Recommendation: That the Transportation Committee recommend that the Board approve SACOG's entry into a partnership with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for pilot testing a transportation planning application of big data, and authorize the chief executive officer to negotiate and sign necessary agreements to carry out the pilot effort.
3. Background: "Big data" refers to extremely large data sets that may be analyzed to reveal patterns, trends, and associations, especially relating to human behavior and interactions. Of particular interest for transportation planning is big data such as cell signals, GPS and location data collected through smart phones and other electronic devices such as in- vehicle navigation systems. Several vendors have begun offering big data products and services targeted to transportation planning agencies. Although the offerings of each vendor vary significantly, the common elements are: estimates of volumes of person or vehicle trips from origin to destination, tabulated by time of day, day of week, etc.; the ability to query trip data for specific information (e.g., all trips using a particular roadway segment at a particular time); and options for mapping the data. Vendor offerings vary in how the confidentiality and privacy of the underlying raw data is protected, and the level of detail for mode of travel and trip purpose. The market for these big data products and services is evolving quickly, with changes occurring frequently in the type of data offered, user interfaces, pricing of data and services, etc.
4. Discussion/Analysis: Over the last six months, SACOG organized a review of some of the available big-data-for-transportation offerings, in collaboration with several local and state agencies, and UC Davis. At the conclusion of this review, Caltrans, the California Air Resource Board, and UC Davis indicated a strong interest in pooling resources to pilot test an application of big data for transportation planning. This group of agencies foresees that big data will be a major tool in understanding and tracking transportation in our region; the question is when public agencies will elect to participate more actively in on-boarding of data and services. This group also believes that though the marketplace is evolving quickly, Transportation Committee Page | 2
the products and services currently available are developed enough to merit a serious pilot test.
In order to activate this partnership, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) will need to be signed by the participating agencies for purposes of the pilot project. The MOA will include the following components: 1) a statement of goals of the pilot test; 2) definition of roles of each participant in the pilot; and 3) the funding each partner is willing to commit. SACOG would serve as manager of the pilot.
The total cost for the pilot will be based on proposals from vendors. The goal is to acquire an up-to-two-year license providing full access to data and services from the selected vendor to all partners. Based on current discussions with the other partners, the funding commitments from each partner are: SACOG—up to $200,000 (local funds); Caltrans—up to $400,000 (federal and state funds); ARB—up to $110,000 (state funds). UC Davis indicated strong interest but has not committed any funding to join the partnership at this time.
SACOG’s funding commitment will come from funds awarded for the Household Travel Survey Project through the Regional/Local funding round by the SACOG Board of Directors in 2015 and from the SAFE Board of Directors in 2016. Staff has reserved $200,000 of those funds for this Big Data Pilot Project. The big data acquired through the Pilot will augment the detailed, person- and household-level data collected through the Household Travel Survey, and provide a “universe” of travel activity data that will be useful for weighting and expanding the survey data, as well as for independently analyzing current travel patterns in the region.
To minimize the cost and meet the requirements of federally funded projects, SACOG will conduct a competitive procurement through a request for proposal (RFP) process to enter into a contract with the selected consultant.
5. Fiscal Impact/Grant Information: The project is a proposed new project in SACOG's 2018 work plan. Existing SACOG funding from the budget for the household travel survey will be used towards this project. Transportation Committee Meeting Date: 02/01/18 Agenda Item No.: 2018-February-6
Subject: Unmet Transit Needs Findings for Sacramento Regional Transit District, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba Counties, and the Cities Therein
Action Consent Information R&F Report Workshop Prepared by: Barbara VaughanBechtold Approved by: Matt Carpenter Attachments: Y N
1. Issue: The state Transportation Development Act (TDA) requires that SACOG make annual unmet transit needs findings for the Sacramento Regional Transit District and TDA-eligible jurisdictions in Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties.
2. Recommendation: That the Transportation Committee recommend that the Board: (1) approve the minutes (Attachments F-I) of the five public hearings held on unmet transit needs in Sacramento County, including the Sacramento Regional Transit District (SRTD) and cities therein, and in Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties and the cities therein, and of the public hearing held on January 18, 2018, before the SACOG Board of Directors; and (2) adopt the attached resolutions regarding the FY 2018-19 unmet transit needs in each county, cities therein, and the SRTD.
3. Background: The State Transportation Development Act (TDA) statute establishes a Local Transportation Fund (LTF) for each county. LTF revenues are derived from ¼ cent of the state retail sales tax and are returned to each county according to the amount of tax collected. LTF funds are apportioned to jurisdictions within each county on a population basis. In Sacramento County, the LTF apportioned to jurisdictions located within the SRTD may only be used for transit service. However, jurisdictions located outside the SRTD may use their LTF apportionments for street and road projects, provided they have no transit requests that meet SACOG-adopted definitions of “unmet transit needs” that are “reasonable to meet.”
Under TDA statue, it is the responsibility of the SACOG Board annually to make one of the following findings for each of the four counties, the cities therein, and the SRTD: (1) there are no unmet transit needs; (2) there are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet; or (3) there are unmet transit needs, including transit needs that are reasonable to meet. These findings must be made prior to SACOG approving claims for TDA Local Transportation Funds.
4. Discussion/Analysis: FY 2018-19 Findings Transportation Committee Page | 2
TDA statutes require that SACOG follow a specific process in making an unmet transit needs finding for each jurisdiction. Staff has carried out this process for FY 2018-19, described in Attachment A. As part of the process, transit service requests were identified during public hearings, input submitted electronically, via phone and text, by mail, and through the transportation planning process. These requests were evaluated as to whether they meet SACOG's adopted unmet transit need definitions (Attachment A). The Social Service Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) for each county participated in the analysis with staff and concurs with staff recommendations. Comments on operational issues, rather than on transit service areas and routes, have been shared with the respective transit or other appropriate agencies.
The public transit operators and jurisdictions and their respective recommended findings are listed in the attached resolutions and summarized in Attachment B. Attachments C, D, and E provide more details on comments and findings for each of the four counties.
In response to Committee concerns with the current unmet transit needs process, staff is working on alternatives to bring to the Committee for a future discussion.
5. Fiscal Impact/Grant Information: Completion of this Unmet Transit Needs Process will allow SACOG to continue apportioning approximately $75 million in TDA LTF funds to the agencies eligible to use those funds during the coming fiscal year. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Unmet Transit Needs Findings Process Attachment B - Social Service Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) Unmet Transit Needs Findings Summary Attachment C - Sacramento/Sacramento Regional Transit District Comments and SSTAC Findings Attachment D - Yolo County Comments and SSTAC Findings Attachment E - Yuba/Sutter County Comments and SSTAC Findings Attachment F - Sacramento County and Sacramento Regional Transit District Public Hearing Minutes Attachment G - Yolo County Public Hearing Minutes Attachment H - Sutter County and Yuba County Public Hearing Minutes Attachment I - SACOG Board Public Hearing Minutes Resolution - Citrus Heights Resolution - Davis Resolution - Elk Grove Resolution - Folsom Resolution - Galt Resolution - Live Oak Resolution - Isleton Resolution - Marysville Resolution - Rancho Cordova Resolution - Sacramento Regional Transit District Resolution - Unincorporated Sacramento County Resolution - Unincorporated Sutter County Resolution - Unincorporated Yolo County Resolution - Unincorporated Yuba County Resolution - West Sacramento Resolution - Wheatland Resolution - Winters Transportation Committee Page | 3
Resolution - Woodland Resolution - Yuba City Attachment A
SACOG Unmet Transit Needs Finding Process and Definitions
The Transportation Development Act (TDA) is a state law, which provides funding for public transportation from a portion of sales tax collected from each county. The Sacramento Area Council of Governments has TDA administration responsibilities for Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba Counties. The annual Unmet Transit Needs Finding process and definitions as described below is required by TDA law to identify transit service needs. TDA Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenues can be used for streets and roads projects in some jurisdictions after “reasonable to meet” transit services have been provided.
1. Unmet Transit Needs Finding Process Requirements
TDA statutes require that SACOG follow a specific process in making an unmet transit needs finding for each jurisdiction in the region. The process includes the following actions:
a. Establish a Social Service Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) for each County to participate in the unmet transit needs finding process.
The Social Service Transportation Advisory Council - Each county’s SSTAC participates in the identification of unmet transit needs and the determination whether those needs are reasonable to meet. Advisory Council members preside, along with a SACOG Board member, at unmet transit needs public hearings in each county. Hearings are only held in jurisdictions if all TDA LTF funds are not currently used for transit purposes, though some entities, such as the Sacramento Regional Transit District, are required by statute to hold hearings regardless of the TDA LTF use.
The composition of the SSTAC is set forth in statute and consists of representatives of (number in parenthesis denote number of required representatives): potential transit users who are 60 years of age or older (1); physically disabled (1); social service provider for seniors, including a transportation provider (2); social service provider for people with disabilities, including a transportation provider (2); social service provider for persons of limited means (1); and, representatives of the Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA), including a transit operator (2). Where possible, SACOG also seeks the participation of at least one current or potential public transit rider in order to obtain input on transit service needs.
b. Identify transit service needs which have been considered as part of the transportation planning process through Short Range Transit Planning, Comprehensive Operational Analysis, and other studies; as well as the MTP/SCS.
c. Members of the SSTAC and at least one representative of the SACOG Board of Directors, when available, conduct public hearings in Sacramento and Yolo counties and a joint hearing in Sutter and Yuba counties to receive public comments regarding unmet transit service needs. A minimum of five hearings are held yearly within the four counties in jurisdictions where all TDA LTF funds are not currently used for transit purposes, including the SRTD. Page 1 of 3
Attachment A
d. During a regularly scheduled Board meeting, the SACOG Board holds a sixth and final public hearing to receive any additional testimony regarding transit service needs that may be reasonable to meet.
e. SACOG staff compiles a list of unmet transit service needs for each transit operator for SSTAC consideration to determine whether the Unmet Transit Needs are reasonable to meet. SACOG staff and SSTAC members meet to review potential unmet transit needs using Board adopted definitions of “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet.” (See the following section) An important consideration of whether a need is reasonable to meet is the ability of an operator to maintain the farebox recovery ratio required under the TDA statutes or established by SACOG.
SACOG staff and the SSTAC, including transit agency staff, make unmet transit needs findings recommendations to the SACOG Board. The SSTAC may formulate an independent recommendation to the SACOG Board. Generally, both the SSTAC and the SACOG staff present a joint recommendation to the SACOG Board.
f. During a regularly scheduled Board meeting, the SACOG Board receives reports from staff on the public input results and the joint recommendation. The Board will make one of the following three possible findings affecting the next fiscal year (one for each county, for the cities within, and for the Sacramento Regional Transit District):
1) there are no unmet transit needs, or 2) there are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet, or 3) there are unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet.
If it is determined there are unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet within the service area of a transit agency, then the transit agency must meet the needs before any TDA LTF funds can be released for streets and roads projects.
2. Definitions of “Unmet Transit Needs” and “Reasonable to Meet”
TDA regulations require SACOG to adopt definitions of "unmet transit needs" and "reasonable to meet" to guide staff and SSTAC analysis as to whether an identified need is an "unmet transit need that is reasonable to meet". On August 20, 2015, the Board adopted the following definitions:
a. Unmet Transit Needs - Are defined as:
Existing transit services or service variants, including services where transfers may be necessary to complete a trip, that are not adequately meeting the identified transportation needs of residents of the SACOG four-county Regional Transportation Planning Area (Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties) who are likely to use public transportation. This includes, but is not limited to: trips for education and training (excluding exclusive school bus transportation), employment, healthcare services, personal business, recreation, and social services.
Per the TDA law operational comments cannot be considered unmet transit needs. All operational
Page 2 of 3
Attachment A
comments received during the annual Unmet Transit Needs Process are noted and shared with the applicable transit operator(s), allowing the operator(s) to discuss and address any significant operational issues with their staffs and governing bodies.
b. Reasonable to Meet – Is defined as:
An unmet transit need that meets the definition above and meets all of the following criteria shall be considered reasonable to meet:
1. Community Acceptance - There needs to be demonstrated interest of citizens in the new or additional transit service (i.e. multiple comments, petitions etc.).
2. Equity - The proposed new or additional service will benefit, the general public, residents who use or would use public transportation regularly, the senior population, and persons with disabilities; including assessments based on Title VI or other similar information where available.
3. Potential Ridership - The proposed transit service will not reduce the agency’s ability to maintain the current transit service, including safety, security and maintenance, and will meet new service ridership performance standards established for the transit operator in their agency planning documents. Ridership performance standards include passengers per hour and passengers per mile.
4. Cost Effectiveness - The proposed new or additional transit service will not affect the ability of the overall system to meet the state mandated farebox recovery ratio requirement after the two-year exemption period for new services, if the service is eligible for the exemption. The overall system service must meet minimum farebox return requirements as stated in the TDA statutes or established by SACOG.
5. Funding - The proposed new or additional transit service will not cause the claimant to incur expenses in excess of the maximum allocation of TDA LTF funds.
6. Feasibility - The proposed new or additional transit service can be implemented safely and in accordance with local, state, and federal laws and regulations.
Page 3 of 3 Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment B
2018-2019 Social Service Transportation Advisory Council Unmet Transit Needs Findings Location Hearing Date Hearing SSTAC Findings Time Yuba/Sutter Wednesday, Oct. 2:00 PM There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the Unincorporated Areas of the County of Yuba. 11, 2017 There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the Unincorporated Areas of the County of Sutter. Number of Service Related Comments: 1 Number of Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 0
Marysville There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Marysville. Number of Service Related Comments: 1 Number of Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 0
Yuba City There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Yuba City. Number of Service Related Comments: 0 Number of Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 0
Live Oak There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Live Oak. Number of Service Related Comments: 0 Number of Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 0
Wheatland There are no unmet transit needs in the City of Wheatland. Number of Service Related Comments: 0 Number of Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 0
Sacramento There are no unmet transit needs in the Unincorporated Areas of the County of Sacramento outside of the SRTD.
Number of Service Related Comments: 0 Number of Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 0
Citrus Heights There are unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Citrus Heights (as part of the SRTD).
Number of Service Related Comments: 0 Number of Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 0
Elk Grove There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Elk Grove.
Number of Service Related Comments: 8 Number of Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 0
Fair Oaks/ Included in the SRTD. Orangevale Number of Service Related Comments: 0 Number of Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 0
Folsom Monday, Oct. 30 4:00 PM There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Folsom. 2017 Number of Service Related Comments: 1 Number of Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 0
Galt Thursday, Oct. 2:00 PM There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Galt. 26, 2017
Number of Service Related Comments: 3 Number of Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 0
Rancho There are unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Rancho Cordova (as part of the SRTD). Cordova Number of Service Related Comments: 0 Number of Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 0
Isleton There are no unmet transit needs in the City of Isleton. Number of Service Related Comments: 0 Number of Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 0
SRTD Monday, Oct. 23, 2:00 PM There are unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the Sacramento Regional Transit District, including the cities of Citrus Heights 2017 and Rancho Cordova, as well as portions of Unincorporated Sacramento County.
Number of Folsom Light Rail Service Related Comments: 1 Number of Folsom Light Rail Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 0
Number of Service Related Comments: 25 Number of Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 3
Yolo Monday, Nov. 6, 6:00 PM There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the Unincorporated Areas of the County of Yolo. 2017
Number of Service Related Comments: 5 Number of Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 0
Davis There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Davis. Number of Service Related Comments: 13 Number of Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 0
West There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of West Sacramento. Sacramento Number of Service Related Comments: 2 Number of Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 0
Winters There are no unmet transit needs in the City of Winters. Number of Service Related Comments: 1 Number of Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 0
Woodland There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Woodland. Number of Service Related Comments: 0 Number of Unmet Needs Reasonable to Meet: 0 Sacramento County - Unmet Transit Needs Comments Attachment C Unmet Transit Need that is not Reasonable to Unmet Transit Need that is Reasonable to Not An Unmet Transit Need Meet at this time Meet Comments There are unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the Sacramento Regional Transit District (incl. portions of Unincorp. Sacramento County and the cities of Citrus Heights, Rancho Cordova and Sacramento). [Unmet Transit Needs are highlighted] There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the cities of Elk Grove, Folsom, Galt, Isleton, and the portion of Unincorporated Sacramento County that is not in the SRTD. All operational comments are shared with the transit operators, and/or the appropriate jurisdiction. Sacramento County 1 Service Elk Grove With implementation of e-tran service changes on October 29, 2017 the route 110 Will anything be done to provide public transit now serves the Promenade Kaiser facility from 6:30 AM to 10 PM Monday through access to the Promenade Kaiser medical facility Friday. in Elk Grove? This is not an unmet transit need.
2 ACC Rides, a volunteer driver based service, now provides rides in Elk Grove. All riders provided This is not an unmet transit need. are in ADA accessible vehicles. 3 As of October 29, 2017, there is no longer a Route 66. The new service includes The route 66 should have an earlier run in the several commuter routes that leave Elk Grove to Sacramento within the time frame morning leaving between 6-6:15 AM to allow for specified in the comment received. user to transfer to other services to take them beyond downtown Sacramento. This is not an unmet transit need. 4 The Local Route 111 has direct service to this location, Monday through Friday. A direct bus to Raley's at Franklin and Elk Grove Boulevard would be nice. This is not an unmet transit need.
5 As of October 29, 2017, Saturday service has been increased from one route to four Weekend service is appalling. Three busses in local routes, with service hours from 6:30 am to 6:30 pm. There is no longer Sunday the morning and 3 busses in the afternoon on Elk service due to low ridership/demand that came out of the COA study. Grove Blvd. and no bus service on Laguna after about 3 in the afternoon. The weekend service This is not an unmet transit need should run until 5 PM considering the connection to light rail at Cosumnes River College.
6 There should be dedicated bus lines that run the This is not an unmet transit need, due to the level of service that's currently length of Elk Grove Blvd. and Laguna Blvd. in Elk provided. All local routes, with the exception of one is on hourly frequency. Grove. 7 Local service provides all day service Monday through Friday, along all those streets. Saturday service is reduced to four local routes and services all, with the exception of Busses should run up and down other streets, Harbour Point Dr. such as Big Horn, Bruceville, Franklin, and of course, Harbour Point. This is not an unmet transit need.
8 As of October 29, 2017, Saturday service has been increased from one route to four The new weekend e-tran services will leave many local routes, with service hours from 6:30 am to 6:30 pm. There is no longer Sunday non-drivers stranded on weekends unable to service due to low ridership/demand that came out of the COA study. access necessary services like grocery and drug stores. This is not an unmet transit need
9 Service Folsom There is not currently demonstrated demand for this service. Run light rail to/from Folsom run later so that people could enjoy more of what Folsom has to This not an unmet transit need. offer after 7 PM. 10 Folsom Stage Line Transit currently offers no weekend transit service and there is no Folsom Dial-A-Ride service should be available demonstrated demand for this service. For people with disabilities wishing to travel on weekends, and could lessen isolation of to/from the area immediately (3/4 of a mile) of the Folsom light rail stations on seniors and people with disabilities to rely on that weekends Paratransit, Inc. services are available. service. This is not an unmet transit need.
Page 1 of 15 Sacramento County - Unmet Transit Needs Comments Attachment C Unmet Transit Need that is not Reasonable to Unmet Transit Need that is Reasonable to Not An Unmet Transit Need Meet at this time Meet Comments 11 Operations Folsom Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs More frequent bus service in Folsom to make process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate riding transit a more viable and convenient option departments. This is not an unmet transit need. for more people.
12 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate Folsom transit service to light rail every 1/2 hour. departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
13 Operations Galt Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs ACC Rides staff shared that they now offer process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate service to the Delta area including Courtland, departments. This is not an unmet transit need. Hood-Franklin, Walnut Grove and Isleton. This is a volunteer based service that provides on average 400 rides per month to get riders to necessary appointments and services they could not otherwise reach on their own. They would like to work with South County Transit/Link to coordinate as much as possible.
14 Service Riders can get to Galt throughout the week (M-F) on the Highway 99 Express. If eligible riders can transfer to/from the Highway 99 Express onto e-van (Elk Grove Reservable (demand response) transportation paratransit) or Galt Dial-A-Ride. The only portion of the trip that would not be services that connect the Galt and Elk Grove demand response would be the Highway 99 Express which operates on an hourly areas are needed to allow dialysis patients to scheduled. access dialysis services in Elk Grove (none are available in Galt). This is an unmet transit need that is not reasonable to meet at this time.
15 Barbara VaughanBechtold, SACOG staff, shared information with the commenter regarding how the existing commuter bus services provided by Amador Bus Line and There is a need for Senior/Disability services in paid for by the County of Sacramento and how it is possible to make transfers to Rancho Murieta that would be able to transport to connect to Sacramento RT, Folsom Stage Line and El Dorado Transit. Paratransit, Sacramento, Folsom, and El Dorado Hills door to Inc. does not currently serve the community of Rancho Murieta as it is outside of the door. Sacramento RT District as well as the Sacramento Urbanized Area.
This is an unmet transit need that is not reasonable to meet at this time.
16
Regarding the request for SCT/Link Highway 99 Express to stop at the Galt park and ride. SCT/Link stops at Galt City Hall which serves as an informal transit center for Offer an SCT/Link Highway 99 Express stop at SCT/Link. This route is an express, so adding too many stops defeats that goal. the Park and Ride in Galt as many students are SCT/Link will need to look into how this would affect the route schedule and others needing to get to Kaiser would benefit connections at CRC, and survey current riders. It is not clear what group of students greatly. Even if the Park and Ride stop was only are needing to get to Kaiser. Would there be the same students currently riding 99 offered sometimes (similar to the RT light rail Express bus to CRC from City Hall? Given the need for substantial further study this Gold line to Folsom) that would be greatly need cannot be shown as reasonable to meet. appreciated. This is an unmet transit need that is not reasonable to meet at this time.
Page 2 of 15 Sacramento County - Unmet Transit Needs Comments Attachment C Unmet Transit Need that is not Reasonable to Unmet Transit Need that is Reasonable to Not An Unmet Transit Need Meet at this time Meet Comments 17 Service SRTD Transit service to Delta Shores will be implemented on Sunday January 7, 2018 Delta Shores shopping center located in south (incl. portions of (actual start date will be Monday, January 8, 2018); Route 65 will be extended from Sacramento off of Interstate 5. He stated that Unincorporated Sacramento Franklin light rail station to Delta Shores via Cosumnes River Blvd.; Route 65 there is currently no transit service to this large County) operates Mon-Fri, from approximately 6am to 8pm, with 60-minute headways shopping center making it impossible for potential job seekers or shoppers without access to a This is an unmet transit need that is reasonable to meet. person vehicle to access Delta Shores. The shopping center is located more than 2 miles from the nearest existing bus route the RT #56.
18 Barbara VaughanBechtold, SACOG staff, explained that within the Sacramento Regional Transit District TDA LTF funds could only be used for transit purposes. Commenter requested clarification of the effect of She went on to clarify that outside the RT District LTF funds could be used for the Unmet Transit Needs findings on the streets and roads purposes only if there were not unmet transit needs that were Transportation Development Act (TDA) Local reasonable to meet and the use of those funds for non-transit purposes did not Transportation Fund (LTF) versus the effect on affect the current level of transit service offered. the State Transit Assistance (STA) funding. This is not an unmet transit need. 19 Staff representing ACC Rides made a comment: ACC Rides provides volunteer based rides in accessible vehicles to underserved communities comprised of 10 zip codes in south Sacramento City/County including the Delta area and the City of Elk Grove. A majority of their riders are Vietnamese, Mien, Hmong, and Chinese and This is not an unmet transit need. ACC Rides has drivers and staff that speak those languages in order to assist their riders and make them more comfortable. Many of the ACC Rides passengers have mobility issues that necessitate the use of a wheelchair and prevent them from readily transferring to other services.
20 Increase transit mobility access, coverage, and This is not an unmet transit need. services for seniors and people with disabilities.
21 The extension (time of service) of night and This is not an unmet transit need. weekend services. 22 Sacrament RT and Amazon will be discussing transit service needs to the distribution Have public transit access to the new center once demand for service is established by Amazon. Sacramento Airpark development, especially considering the large number of jobs provided by This is an unmet transit need that is reasonable to meet. the Amazon Distribution Center there. 23 Ms. VaughanBechtold responded after the hearing closed that holding evening hearings after work hours was frequently challenging since it was required that there be transit access to and from all hearing locations. She also said that the number of More Unmet Transit Needs public hearings hearings was set by the SACOG Board and is a reflection of the large increase in should be held in the evening. the number of electronic (email) comments received and the relatively small number of comments received at the in person hearings.
This is not an unmet transit need. 24 See comment above. A larger number of Unmet Transit Needs public hearings should be held overall. This is not an unmet transit need. 25 RT route 1: (Auburn/Greenback) Eliminate Route. Suggestion re: existing service. This is not an unmet transit need. See Route 103 (Auburn) and Route 80 (Elkhorn/Greenback) for replacement "corridor" service.
Page 3 of 15 Sacramento County - Unmet Transit Needs Comments Attachment C Unmet Transit Need that is not Reasonable to Unmet Transit Need that is Reasonable to Not An Unmet Transit Need Meet at this time Meet Comments 26 Service SRTD Suggestion re: existing service. This is not an unmet transit need. (incl. portions of Unincorporated Sacramento RT route 15: (Rio Linda/Richards Boulevards) County) Route would restructure to operate from Downtown Sacramento to Watt/I-80 Station lower level through McClellan Business Park. From 8th & O Streets in Downtown Sacramento, route would operate via 8th Street, I Street, Northbound Interstate Five, Richards Boulevard, Sproule Street, Sunbeam Avenue, North 16th Street, Northbound State Highway One Sixty, Del Paso Boulevard, Arden Way, Oxford Street, Del Paso Boulevard, Lampasas Avenue, Río Linda Boulevard, Grand Avenue, Winters Street, McClellan Park Drive, Forcum Avenue, Dudley Boulevard, Peacekeeper Way, Luce Avenue, Palm Street, Dudley Boulevard, James Way, Watt Avenue, and Roseville Road, entering Roseville Road Station via Station Roadway at Roseville Road, making the way via Station Roadway to the terminus at Watt/I-80 Light Rail Station. Traveling towards Downtown Sacramento, route would travel via Jiboom Street rather than Southbound Interstate Five so as to resolve an unmet transit need by stopping and serving the new Power House Science Center. This Center replaces the Discovery Museum off of Auburn Boulevard near Watt Avenue. Proposal would have route operate every fifteen minutes on weekdays and every thirty minutes on Weekends/Holidays.
27 Suggestion re: existing service. This is not an unmet transit need. RT route 19: (Town of Rio Linda) Route would restructure to serve Watt/I-80 Station Lower Level using the exact same "turn-by-turn" directions as Route 15 (Rio Linda/Richards Boulevards) does from the intersection of Watt Avenue and Roseville Road. From the Arden/Del Paso Light Rail Station to the intersection of Watt Avenue and Roseville Road, route would operate exactly the same as it does today with no route alignment changes being proposed. Proposal would have Route operate every sixty minutes, seven days a week.
28 Suggestion re: existing service. This is not an unmet transit need. RT route 26: (Fulton Avenue) Route would follow existing route alignment from the University/65th Street Station to the intersection of Watt Avenue and Longview Drive. From Watt Avenue and Longview Drive, route would operate via Longview Drive and Roseville Road, entering Roseville Road Station via Station Roadway at Roseville Road, making the way via Station Roadway to the terminus at Watt/I-80 Light Rail Station. For service to/from McClellan Business Park, See description of Route 15. Proposal would have Route operate every thirty minutes on weekdays, and every sixty minutes on Weekends/Holidays.
Page 4 of 15 Sacramento County - Unmet Transit Needs Comments Attachment C Unmet Transit Need that is not Reasonable to Unmet Transit Need that is Reasonable to Not An Unmet Transit Need Meet at this time Meet Comments 29 Suggestion re: existing service. This is not an unmet transit need. RT route 80: (Elkhorn/Greenback) Route would operate from Historic Folsom Station via Greenback Lane and Elkhorn Boulevard to Sacramento International Airport. This would be the route operating to the new Sacramento Metro Air Park 855,000 square foot Amazon Facility that will employ 1,500 people. This route would replace Route 1 (Auburn/Greenback) along Greenback Lane. Proposal would have route operate every 30 minutes, seven days a week.
30 Service SRTD RT route 84: (Watt Avenue South) Route would Suggestion re: existing service. This is not an unmet transit need. (incl. portions of operate exactly as Route 84 currently operates, Unincorporated Sacramento up to the intersection of Watt Avenue and County) Longview Drive. Route would then follow alignment of Route 26, described earlier, from Watt Avenue and Longview Drive to the Watt/I-80 Station. All service North of Watt Avenue and Longview Drive would be eliminated. See restructured Route 85 for Routing North of the Watt/I-80 Station. This route would be proposed to operate every thirty minutes, seven days a week. 31 Suggestion re: existing service. This is not an unmet transit need. RT route 85: (Watt Avenue North) Route would begin at Watt Avenue and Elverta Road and travel to the Watt/I-80 Station via Watt Avenue, Antelope Road, Walerga Road, Don Julio Boulevard, Watt Avenue, and Roseville Road, entering Roseville Road Station via Station Roadway at Roseville Road, making the way via Station Roadway to the terminus at Watt/I-80 Light Rail Station. This route would be proposed to operate every 30 minutes, seven days a week.
32 RT route 93: Eliminate Route. See Routes 102 Suggestion re: existing service. This is not an unmet transit need. and 103 for replacement service. 33 Suggestion re: existing service. This is not an unmet transit need. RT route 102: (Hillsdale Boulevard) Route would begin at Andrea Boulevard and Elkhorn Boulevard and travel via Andrea Boulevard, Hillsdale Boulevard, Madison Avenue, Air Base Drive, Watt Avenue, and Roseville Road, entering Roseville Road Station via Station Roadway at Roseville Road, making the way via Station Roadway to the terminus at Watt/I-80 Light Rail Station. This route would be proposed to operate every sixty minutes, seven days a week.
Page 5 of 15 Sacramento County - Unmet Transit Needs Comments Attachment C Unmet Transit Need that is not Reasonable to Unmet Transit Need that is Reasonable to Not An Unmet Transit Need Meet at this time Meet Comments 34 Service SRTD Suggestion re: existing service. This is not an unmet transit need. (incl. portions of RT route 103: (Auburn Boulevard) Route would Unincorporated Sacramento start at the Louis/Orlando Transfer Point and County) travel via Louis Lane, Orlando Avenue, Auburn Boulevard, College Oak Avenue, Orange Grove Avenue, Auburn Boulevard and Watt Avenue, to the intersection of Watt Avenue and Longview Drive. From Watt Avenue and Longview Drive, route would operate via Longview Drive and Roseville Road, entering Roseville Road Station via Station Roadway at Roseville Road, making the way via Station Roadway to the terminus at Watt/I-80 Light Rail Station. This route would be proposed to operate Weekdays every ten minutes, Saturdays every twenty minutes, and Sundays/Holidays every thirty minutes.
35 Transit service to Delta Shores will be implemented on Sunday January 7, 2018 Since a light rail connection is several years (actual start date will be Monday, January 8, 2018); Route 65 will be extended from away, could the current route Sacramento Franklin light rail station to Delta Shores via Cosumnes River Blvd.; Route 65 Regional Transit #56 bus be redesigned to operates Mon-Fri, from approximately 6am to 8pm, with 60-minute headways. include a short route inclusion through the Delta Shores area to meet present ridership needs? This is an unmet transit need that is reasonable to meet.
36 Barbara VaughanBechtold, SACOG staff, shared information with the commenter Vintage Park Community has no public regarding Paratransit, Inc. service for her family member who may qualify to get transportation within a reasonable walking where they need to go if they area otherwise unable to access fixed route transit that distance from this neighborhood at Elk Grove exists within ½ mile of their home. Florin and Vintage Park Drive. This area is underserved and should have regular public There is no demonstrated demand for this service. transit to established grocery shopping centers, the nearby community college Cosumnes River This is an unmet transit need that is not reasonable to meet at this time. College, and other bus routes to downtown Sacramento or downtown Elk Grove.
This comment is to vague to analyze effectively.
Reinstate needed bus service. This is not an unmet transit need. This comment is to vague to analyze effectively. Increase bus frequency along major routes and in underserved communities. This is not an unmet transit need.
37 Operations SRTD Consideration should be taken for Golden 1 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs (incl. portions of Center employees who do not leave when events process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate Unincorporated Sacramento are over, but instead 1-2 hours after, by which departments. This is not an unmet transit need. County) time all extended “special event” services have stopped. 38 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs It is important to have real time transit information process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate available to the public in both visual and audio departments. This is not an unmet transit need. formats.
39 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs Include more languages on stop and way finding process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate signage beyond just English and sometimes departments. This is not an unmet transit need. Spanish.
Page 6 of 15 Sacramento County - Unmet Transit Needs Comments Attachment C Unmet Transit Need that is not Reasonable to Unmet Transit Need that is Reasonable to Not An Unmet Transit Need Meet at this time Meet Comments 40 Operations SRTD Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs (incl. portions of process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate Unincorporated Sacramento departments. This is not an unmet transit need. County) RT Response: SacRT is continually assessing our bus stops to ensure they are ADA compliant and that mobility is at the forefront. We appreciate your comments about RT should complete an audit of all bus shelters needed improvements at certain bus stops and will have are facilities department and light rail stations, with a focus on ADA examine the routes listed above. If a rider ever has a specific complaint or comment accessibility. For stops that do not meet ADA about a bus stop, we encourage them to contact our Customer Advocacy accessibility standards those stops should not be Department so that we can properly address the concern. Often times, issues with removed but improved to meet standards. infrastructure surrounding or near a stop may be out of SacRT authority and therefore we will often coordinate with jurisdictional partners to ensure necessary improvements are made. In regards to 47th, we are in discussions with the developer about relocating the bus to a safer site nearby and adding a crosswalk
41 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs For proposed Watt/I-80 improvements/redesign process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate consideration should be made for American River departments. This is not an unmet transit need. College students since the current proposed changes would negatively impact those students.
42 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
The Sacramento Transit Riders Union RT Response: Per California law, bringing back the free senior fare for riders 75 and encourages RT to looks for and hopefully find over would require that SacRT also offer free rides to all disabled riders. This could funding to bring back the “super senior” fare for cause an annual loss of revenue estimated at $3.1M. Section 99155 of the Public those 75 years of age and older. Utilities Code (PUC) requires that a transit operator offering a reduced fare for seniors must also offer reduced fares to disabled persons. SacRT will consider this fare option if a new ballot measure or alternate funding source is identified in the future.
43 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate Outreach needs to be done in a variety of other departments. This is not an unmet transit need. languages.
44 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate Public hearings should be held outside the regular 9-5 hours when possible. departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
45 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs th RT route 67 should stop at 28 Street to make process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate crossing to get to the 29th Street light rail station departments. This is not an unmet transit need. easier and safer (this is a controlled intersection).
46 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs More outreach needs to be done prior to process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate construction on and around transit stations/stops, departments. and especially an large amount of outreach if a This is not an unmet transit need. stop is to be removed/discontinued. In some cases she has seen a stop removed (either RT staff responded that they would share issues of notification with their operations temporarily or permanently) or discontinued and staff who handle that outreach. outreach done after the fact.
Page 7 of 15 Sacramento County - Unmet Transit Needs Comments Attachment C Unmet Transit Need that is not Reasonable to Unmet Transit Need that is Reasonable to Not An Unmet Transit Need Meet at this time Meet Comments 47 Operations SRTD Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs (incl. portions of process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate Unincorporated Sacramento RT should make consideration to create the least departments. County) amount of inconvenience to passengers. Golden This is not an unmet transit need. 1 Center reroutes are not sufficiently noted. RT staff responded that they would share issues of notification with their operations staff who handle that outreach. 48 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
RT Response: Offering free transfers for all fares poses two significant issues for RT should provide free transfers for all fares, and SacRT. The first is operational, having to issue a 90 minute ticket to every rider that not restrict this service only to those who pay via pays cash on a bus would put undue stress on the fareboxes. This could potentially smartphone app or Connect Card. cause more fareboxes to go out of service eliminating SacRT's ability to collect cash fares on the bus for the remainder of the route. Second is the significant fiscal impact. It is estimated that providing the 90 minute fare to all riders would cost SacRT approximately $1.4M annually.
49 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
RT Response: Per California law, bringing back the free senior fare for riders 75 and RT should bring back the free fare for senior over would require that SacRT also offer free rides to all disabled riders. This could riders 75 years of age or older. cause an annual loss of revenue estimated at $3.1M. Section 99155 of the Public Utilities Code (PUC) requires that a transit operator offering a reduced fare for seniors must also offer reduced fares to disabled persons. SacRT will consider this fare option if a new ballot measure or alternate funding source is identified in the future.
50 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
RT Response: SacRT is constantly looking at ways to supplement and extend service in order to meet our customer’s needs. Unfortunately, due to budgetary Extend night and weekend service on all bus constraints, and the failure of Measure B last fall, we do not have the resources routes and light rail service. needed to extend all of our bus and light rail routes to late night at this time. We are currently in discussions with the City of Folsom on extending late night light rail service on weekdays and hope to find a way to implement in the near future. We also plan to pursue grant opportunities that would enable us to extend service.
51 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
RT Response: SacRT is actively working with regional partners and developers to Better access and service to newly developed identify emerging work centers and entertainment districts in order to ensure transit work centers to give transit dependent riders is part of the equation. We have been in discussions with Amazon regarding service better access to jobs in our community. to their new fulfillment. We are working closely with the Railyards developers to ensure development of the large infill project grows up around transit. Building and strengthening SacRT partnerships with the community is instrumental to aligning jobs with transit service. These efforts will be coordinated with the Route Optimization Study.
Page 8 of 15 Sacramento County - Unmet Transit Needs Comments Attachment C Unmet Transit Need that is not Reasonable to Unmet Transit Need that is Reasonable to Not An Unmet Transit Need Meet at this time Meet Comments 52 Operations SRTD Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs (incl. portions of process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate Unincorporated Sacramento departments. This is not an unmet transit need. County) RT Response: The electronic messaging signs in SacRT's light rail stations are currently used to alert riders of delays to the light rail system. The messages are limited by the current older sign technology to very basic service alerts. While we are always working on better ways to communicate with customers at light rail stations, for example the recent addition of a public address system at each station, the current signs will never be able to support detailed messages describing all aspects of a service disruption. For this reason we have deployed an alternative solution through our Alert SacRT app. The app is free and allows users to report various Better real-time communication with riders. safety and security problems that they might see while using the system. The app also has an alert feature that provides more detailed information concerning delays to light rail service via a service alert to a customer's mobile phone. This app allows SacRT to provide much more information than can be provided through the message signs at the light rail stations. In the future we would like to install modern electronic messaging signs that are much more flexible allowing SacRT to display a variety of customer information including more detail related to service disruptions. These are improvements currently being considered as a part of the station renovation that will be required to support a future transition to a low floor light rail vehicle fleet.
53 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
RT Response: The Watt / I-80 transit center poses many obstacles for riders, from safety and access to cleanliness and beyond. SacRT launched the Re-Imagine Watt/I-80 project last October with the goal of making the station safer and more accessible for all transit riders. We hope that reassessing the station and Replace the elevator at the Watt/I-80 light rail incorporating public input will lead to enhancements that will make the station more station. appealing and easier to navigate. We currently clean the Watt/I-80 station twice a day and pressure wash it at night, and we remain committed to safety, security and cleanliness of all of our stations. Furthermore, we have increased security patrols at the station and have the ability to monitor activity via our camera system. Additionally, SacRT recently awarded a repair contract to rehabilitate the elevators. We are in the initial phases of the process of reimagining the station and will be hosting a public workshop at the North Highlands Community Center on January 10th.
54 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
Permanently extend the student discount fare RT Response: In December, the SacRT Board took action to reduce the monthly program that will begin in January 2018. student fare from $55 to $20 a month. This six month pilot is just now launching, but staff hopes that with success, we can extend this pilot program permanently in the future.
Page 9 of 15 Sacramento County - Unmet Transit Needs Comments Attachment C Unmet Transit Need that is not Reasonable to Unmet Transit Need that is Reasonable to Not An Unmet Transit Need Meet at this time Meet Comments 55 Operations SRTD Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs (incl. portions of process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate Unincorporated Sacramento departments. This is not an unmet transit need. County) RT Response: In the last 12 months, SacRT has taken action to hire staff and fill all of our vacant positions. Often times, SacRT will look for outside specialists to Fill permanent RT staffing positions, specifically in provide technical assistance and staff augmentation to help address periodic spikes the planning and engineer departments. in workload. Staff believes that retention of a qualified contractor with capabilities in these areas would be the most timely, cost-effective, and scalable way to meet these needs, especially with respect to handling workload surges, which will help assure that planning staff will be available to focus on the Route Optimization.
56 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
RT Response: Unfortunately, over 1/3 of SacRT’s light rail vehicles are at or near the Fix air conditioning in light rail trains or take those end of their useful life. Replacing these light rail vehicles with modern, low floor trains out of service. Trains with inside vehicles is SacRT’s top priority. Because of the aging fleet, SacRT has experienced temperatures near 100 degrees constitute a operational issues, resulting in longer and more costly repairs on a regular basis, public health and safety risk. and has forced us to periodically reduce the number of light rail trains running during peak travel hours. SacRT is aggressively pursuing funding opportunities that will allow us to replace these vehicles that will mitigate these operational issues.
57 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
RT Response: The connect card scanners at light rail stations are vulnerable to vandalism and while SacRT has a program in place to maintain them, it is certainly possible that a customer could encounter a machine that is broken and has not yet Install new/functional Connect Card scanners as been repaired. In these situations, the customer can ride, and if inspected, inform many have been broken, damaged or are the Transit Agent that the Connect Card reader was broken. The Transit Agent can unresponsive. verify that the reader was broken at that station and will allow the customer to ride without a citation. This is the same procedure that is used if the fare vending machine is not working and a customer cannot purchase a fare. In terms of signage, it is preferable to provide this information to Connect Card customers directly as they either sign up or add money to their Connect Cards.
58 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs More signage is needed to explain how to use the process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate Connect Card machines and who to contact if departments. This is not an unmet transit need. there is a problem. 59 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs th Audible crossing signals are needed at the 16 process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate Street and at the Tiber light rail stations to departments. This is not an unmet transit need. increase safety for visually impaired riders.
60 RT provides shuttles to/from the W-X parking area for Golden 1 Center events, but not all employees can afford or have access to personal Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs vehicles, so the Kings management should be process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate encouraged to see who needs transit services to departments. This is not an unmet transit need. get to and from work on event days/nights and potentially fund a shuttle/transportation to assist them in getting home.
Page 10 of 15 Sacramento County - Unmet Transit Needs Comments Attachment C Unmet Transit Need that is not Reasonable to Unmet Transit Need that is Reasonable to Not An Unmet Transit Need Meet at this time Meet Comments 61 Operations SRTD Bus Route 62 and the Blue Line Watt I-80 Bound Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs (incl. portions of Light Rail train are duplicative and the bus route process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate Unincorporated Sacramento should be moved to another location where it is departments. This is not an unmet transit need. County) more needed. 62 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs RT should bite the bullet and provide and process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate promote FREE PARKING at any light rail station departments. This is not an unmet transit need. north of Meadowview Road all the way into downtown, since the first/last mile in this region is offset by simply riding ones bike/driving all the way into downtown rather than driving/ riding to pay to park to catch and pay a fare on the light rail. Doing this would also alleviate the negative effects of the disaster that is known as the Freeport Boulevard Road Diet, with the blunder known as the triple merge from Sutterville Road onto northbound Freeport this project has caused. What a catastrophe that "improvement" is.
63 Many of the downtown transit options have 15 to Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs 20 minute intervals between pickups which process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate seems generous and reasonable until you departments. This is not an unmet transit need. experience the hardship of adding errands that may take you outside of the downtown core with longer pickup intervals and stops further from your desired destination, or where you encounter non-existent pickup options such as when services are discontinued after hours or on weekends, or during non-peak hours, or for whole seasons. 64 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs Ridiculous that is takes 1+ hours to get to North process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate Natomas from south Sacramento. departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
65 There is something fundamentally wrong about Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs charging us to park. The parking lots were process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate supposed to be an incentive to get us out of our departments. This is not an unmet transit need. cars, not a new way to raise the cost of the 'service' without seeming to. 66 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs Nobody returned my call when I called the bus process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate locker phone number and left a message departments. This is not an unmet transit need. regarding locker availability.
67 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs Bringing a bicycle on RT is not feasible if one is process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate subject to the whim of the driver (light rail) and departments. This is not an unmet transit need. makes taking transit unreliable for those who may need some assistance getting their bicycles up the steep steps on the light rail vehicles.
68 Those outside of the Sacramento King's domain Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs (Golden 1 Center/downtown Sacramento) are process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate expected to do it with infrequent pickups, only on departments. This is not an unmet transit need. weekdays, never on holidays, never very late in the evening and often without even a bench to sit on. 69 Commenter tried to find a way to get to and from Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs Republic FC soccer games and found that there process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate were no routes that would have allowed me to departments. This is not an unmet transit need. walk from the field to a stop before the runs shut down for the night.
Page 11 of 15 Sacramento County - Unmet Transit Needs Comments Attachment C Unmet Transit Need that is not Reasonable to Unmet Transit Need that is Reasonable to Not An Unmet Transit Need Meet at this time Meet Comments 70 Operations SRTD Commenter noticed that RT didn't run later to Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs (incl. portions of accommodate the State Fair even though the fair process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate Unincorporated Sacramento draws thousands of people from across the state departments. This is not an unmet transit need. County) and beyond. 71 Commenter appreciated the new higher capacity Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs bike racks but wondered that after needing the process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate bus to kneel for them, how much more difficult departments. This is not an unmet transit need. would it be to lower the rack to the ground where someone wouldn't have to struggle with lifting and getting themselves dirty by struggling near the tires and chain. 72 Most of the drivers are good drivers, patient, and Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs helpful. The office staff I've encountered were process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate also patient and helpful. The online options have departments. This is not an unmet transit need. improved. 73 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs If transit needs more money, tell the voters what process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate you would do with it, what that would cost, and departments. This is not an unmet transit need. then ask for it. All by yourself. Let the other hopefuls do the same for their wants and needs.
74 Independence at Mather is a planned community Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs built in 2001 and it was said RT would extend a process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate bus line to connect to Light Rail. Still no joy--a departments. This is not an unmet transit need. planned community, yet 15+ years without transit (have to drive 5 miles to get to light rail station). Can anyone help? 75 Connect Card -The connect card needs to Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs convert one-way fares into a day pass once the process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate cash value of a day-pass is purchased. It is departments. This is not an unmet transit need. unacceptable that if someone rides 2 RT and 2 Yolobus Express buses over the course of a day, they will pay $12 for transit, when a $7 pre- purchased day pass would have gotten them on the same buses. Lowering barriers to transit ridership means preventing situations where riders are being charged $12 for a day’s worth of transit because local agencies are unable to co- operate. 76 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs Connect Card should work on the Capitol process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate Corridor, not at the fully-loaded one-time rate, but departments. This is not an unmet transit need. at the ten-trip ticket rate, or cheaper.
77 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs SACOG should present a unified scheduling effort process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate to help people get information in one place about departments. This is not an unmet transit need. commuter trip options from Davis to Sacramento with combined information about Capital Corridor trains and bus services over the causeway.
78 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs Transit should converge on the Sacramento process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate Valley Station before each Capitol Corridor and departments. This is not an unmet transit need. San Joaquin departure and transit should pulse outward from the station after each arrival.
Page 12 of 15 Sacramento County - Unmet Transit Needs Comments Attachment C Unmet Transit Need that is not Reasonable to Unmet Transit Need that is Reasonable to Not An Unmet Transit Need Meet at this time Meet Comments 79 Operations SRTD Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs (incl. portions of Accelerate access improvement plans for bikes, process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate Unincorporated Sacramento transit, and people walking to the Sacramento departments. This is not an unmet transit need. County) Valley Station -- walking between the platforms and the station is a drag.
80 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs One app for all Sacramento transit agencies process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate where we could determine the actual time that a departments. This is not an unmet transit need. bus will reach a stop.
81 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
RT Response: Offering free transfers for all fares poses two significant issues for RT provide free 90 minute transfers for all fare SacRT. The first is operational, having to issue a 90 minute ticket to every rider that types including cash fares. pays cash on a bus would put undue stress on the fareboxes. This could potentially cause more fareboxes to go out of service eliminating SacRT's ability to collect cash fares on the bus for the remainder of the route. Second is the significant fiscal impact. It is estimated that providing the 90 minute fare to all riders would cost SacRT approximately $1.4M annually.
82 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
RT Response: SacRT is constantly looking at ways to supplement and extend Extending night and weekend service on all bus service in order to meet our customer’s needs. Unfortunately, due to budgetary routes and light rail specifically for workers constraints, and the failure of Measure B last fall, we do not have the resources needing service after 7 PM and on weekends. needed to extend all of our bus and light rail routes to late night at this time. We are currently in discussions with the City of Folsom on extending late night light rail service on weekdays and hope to find a way to implement in the near future. We also plan to pursue grant opportunities that would enable us to extend service.
83 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
RT Response: SacRT’s wayfinding signage utilizes international symbols (pictograms) in its signage in order to communicate with non-English speaking customers, as well as customers who are unable to read written language (in accordance with best practices). Pictograms were incorporated into wayfinding Provide better wayfinding information be provided signage beginning in 2013. In addition, all light rail station kiosks display a poster to riders at bus stops and light rail stations in that includes a general statement on how to obtain rider information in English, English and other languages. Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese and Hmong (languages identified in SacRT’s federally mandated Language Assistance Plan) via SacRT’s Language Line, which is SacRT’s third-party telephone language interpretation service. All SacRT’s Customer Service Representatives are able to provide route, fare and schedule information to limited-English-speaking callers by utilizing Language Line services in up to 240 languages.
Page 13 of 15 Sacramento County - Unmet Transit Needs Comments Attachment C Unmet Transit Need that is not Reasonable to Unmet Transit Need that is Reasonable to Not An Unmet Transit Need Meet at this time Meet Comments 84 Operations SRTD Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs (incl. portions of process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate Unincorporated Sacramento departments. This is not an unmet transit need. County) Permanently extending student fare discount RT Response: In December, the SacRT Board took action to reduce the monthly program beyond pilot end date of June 30, 2018. student fare from $55 to $20 a month. This six month pilot is just now launching, but staff hopes that with success, we can extend this pilot program permanently in the future.
85 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
RT Response: The Watt / I-80 transit center poses many obstacles for riders, from safety and access to cleanliness and beyond. SacRT launched the Re-Imagine Watt/I-80 project last October with the goal of making the station safer and more Replace the elevator at the Watt/I-80 transit accessible for all transit riders. We hope that reassessing the station and station, as the bus bridge put in place when the incorporating public input will lead to enhancements that will make the station more elevator is out of service is insufficient and makes appealing and easier to navigate. We currently clean the Watt/I-80 station twice a persons with disabilities trips that must use the day and pressure wash it at night, and we remain committed to safety, security and bridge take longer. cleanliness of all of our stations. Furthermore, we have increased security patrols at the station and have the ability to monitor activity via our camera system. Additionally, SacRT recently awarded a repair contract to rehabilitate the elevators. We are in the initial phases of the process of reimagining the station and will be hosting a public workshop at the North Highlands Community Center on January 10th.
86 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs More transparency is needed to show how funds process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate are spend by RT, such as how the recent loan departments. This is not an unmet transit need. from SACOG was used.
87 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs Make sure RT has adequate funding to not only process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate maintain current service levels, but to support the agency’s long term plans to improve and expand departments. This is not an unmet transit need. their transit services to help the region reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing vehicle miles traveled. 88 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs RT should continue to improve safety and process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate security. departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
89 RT should facilitate and develop increased Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs opportunities for multi-modal connectivity to process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate transit stations and bus stops - bicycling and departments. This is not an unmet transit need. walking – along all major arterials. 90 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs RT should embark on study to identify improvements and amenities at bus stops, i.e., process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate shelters, trash cans, improved access, departments. This is not an unmet transit need. crosswalks. 91 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs Partner with cities and counties in RT service process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate area for this effort and maintenance of the bus departments. This is not an unmet transit need. stops.
92 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs RT should embark on a ridership campaign that process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate publicizes and promotes transit ridership and departments. This is not an unmet transit need. benefits.
Page 14 of 15 Sacramento County - Unmet Transit Needs Comments Attachment C Unmet Transit Need that is not Reasonable to Unmet Transit Need that is Reasonable to Not An Unmet Transit Need Meet at this time Meet Comments 93 Operations SRTD RT should conduct outreach to the level of the Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs (incl. portions of neighborhoods during hours people are not process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate Unincorporated Sacramento working to find out travel needs, origins and departments. This is not an unmet transit need. County) destinations.
Page 15 of 15 Yolo County - Unmet Needs Comments Attachment D
Unmet Transit Need that is Unmet Transit Need that is Reasonable to Not An Unmet Transit Need Not Reasonable to Meet at this time Meet Comments There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the Unincorporated Areas of Yolo County or the cities of Davis, West Sacramento, Winters and Woodland.
All operational comments are shared with the transit operators, and/or the appropriate jurisdiction. 1 Service Yolo County (Unincorporated or Directors Frerichs and Saylor responded to this comment: There is currently a Civic Yolobus services operated Lab innovation project in place to address the issue of rural transit/transportation outside of Yolo County) services including those in Knights Landing.
Terry Bassett also responded to this comment: Looking at different ways to service Knights Landing and want to be sure that whatever service is run is when residents want and need it. Commenter appreciates the buses to/from Knights Landing that run 3 days per week, but The issue of rural transit service in Yolo County is being analyzed as part of a Civic would like to see daily service. Lab project. The project is attempting to determine what the demand really is and what connections need to be made. The issue of rural transit may also be included in a Comprehensive Operational Study for which the Yolo County Transportation District has applied for a grant should hat grant be awarded.
This is an unmet transit need that is not reasonable to meet at this time.
2 The time spread on the current services is Directors Frerichs and Saylor responded to this comment: There is currently a Civic currently too long for those want to run a simple Lab innovation project in place to address the issue of rural transit/transportation errand leaving Knights Landing at 9:45 AM and services including those in Knights Landing. have to wait until 3 PM to return. Terry Bassett also responded to this comment: Looking at different ways to service Knights Landing and want to be sure that whatever service is run is when residents want and need it.
The issue of rural transit service in Yolo County and its connection to other transit services is being analyzed as part of a Civic Lab project. The project is attempting to determine what the demand really is and what connections need to be made. The issue of rural transit may also be included in a Comprehensive Operational Study for which the Yolo County Transportation District has applied for a grant should hat grant be awarded.
This is an unmet transit need that is not reasonable to meet at this time.
3 Directors Frerichs and Saylor responded to this comment: There is currently a Civic Lab innovation project in place to address the issue of rural transit/transportation services including those in Knights Landing.
Terry Bassett also responded to this comment: Looking at different ways to service The Knights Landing Community Members would Knights Landing and want to be sure that whatever service is run is when residents like to see added weekday service, even if want and need it. smaller vehicles are used to save funds to offer more frequent service. Even if the more frequent The issue of rural transit service in Yolo County is being analyzed as part of a Civic service could just be added 1 day per week that Lab project. The project is attempting to determine what the demand really is and what would be helpful, as well as some weekend connections need to be made. The issue of rural transit may also be included in a service. Comprehensive Operational Study for which the Yolo County Transportation District has applied for a grant should hat grant be awarded.
This is an unmet transit need that is not reasonable to meet at this time.
Page 1 of 8 Yolo County - Unmet Needs Comments Attachment D
Unmet Transit Need that is Unmet Transit Need that is Reasonable to Not An Unmet Transit Need Not Reasonable to Meet at this time Meet Comments 4 Service Yolo County (Unincorporated or This comment is regarding school bus service provided by the Woodland Joint Unified Yolobus services operated School District and will be forward to the District to address. outside of Yolo County) Terry Bassett responded to this comment: Yolobus wants to meet the needs of youth in the communities served but cannot be a school bus service. Youth from Knights Landing attend school in Woodland and currently cannot participate in The issue of rural transit service in Yolo County is being analyzed as part of a Civic after school programs, tutoring, sports, etc. Lab project. The project is attempting to determine what the demand really is and what because the only bus home leaves immediately connections need to be made. The issue of rural transit may also be included in a after the school day is completed. Comprehensive Operational Study for which the Yolo County Transportation District has applied for a grant should hat grant be awarded.
This is an unmet transit need that is not reasonable to meet at this time.
5 Yolobus is working with the Sacramento Regional Assessing demand need information Amazon, may look alternate transportation Transit District, the Sacramento Airpark, and options beside standard fixed route services. Amazon on how to potentially serve the new distribution center that opened right near the This is an unmet transit need that is not reasonable to meet at this time. Sacramento International Airport in October 2017. There is current work being done to assess the demand for transit services to the Amazon Distribution center and the maximum workforce and vehicle miles traveled (potential reduction in VMT). 6 Operations Yolo County (Unincorporated or Yolobus services operated Terry Bassett of Yolobus responded: A bus shelter in Knights Landing is currently on outside of Yolo County) the way to being constructed.
SMAQMD grant for bus stop/community gather place. System wide inventory of bus There is currently no bus shelter in Knights stops and amenities. Landing for riders. Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
7 Provide for higher capacity on the evening route 43 from Sacramento to Davis, specifically the run Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs that reaches the Raley Field stop at process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate approximately 4:22 PM. departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
Yolobus will shortly be soliciting public comment on the elimination of route 231 and the replacement of that route with an additional run on route 43, to balance 5 morning and 5 afternoon trips.
8 Offer an earlier departure run on the new 46 route that travels from Sacramento to the Spring Lake area in Woodland, as 5:30 PM is too late. The Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs current departure time mean a minimum of a 30 process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate minute wait for the bus for those working departments. This is not an unmet transit need. "standard" 8-5 schedules, and an even longer wait for those that work "alternative" schedules 7:30-4:30, 7-4 etc. 9 Train Yolobus drivers how to lower buses for those riders obviously needing and/or requesting the bus be lowered for ease of boarding. Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
Page 2 of 8 Yolo County - Unmet Needs Comments Attachment D
Unmet Transit Need that is Unmet Transit Need that is Reasonable to Not An Unmet Transit Need Not Reasonable to Meet at this time Meet Comments 10 Operations Yolo County (Unincorporated or No all Yolobus drivers activate the locators on the Terry Bassett responded to this comment: All Yolobus vehicles have automatic vehicle Yolobus services operated buses they drive, though many passengers rely locators on them and if vehicles are not showing up on the Yolobus vehicle location outside of Yolo County) on the located to determine when a bus will arrive feed it is an issue of drivers not signing on and/or a technical issue. at their stop. Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
11 Yolobus routes 42A and 42B should have 30 minute service offered on these routes. More frequent service would improve farebox recovery (revenue) and increase ridership of those going to Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs the Sacramento International Airport (from which process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate Southwest Airlines will be offering direct service departments. This is not an unmet transit need. to Hawaii in the near future), as well as to the Downtown Commons shopping center and Golden 1 Center. 12 Service Davis The City and transit operators have had challenges working with Rancho Yolo property Ranch Yolo Senior Mobile Home Park located on th manager/landlord to make doorway/path accessible to 5th Street allowing 1/10 mile to Pole Line Road just north of 5 Street in Davis. access to the multiple bus lines that stop thee. A travel training workshop is scheduled Many of the Park’s residents use the Davis in April 2018 at Rancho Yolo. One of two stops on 5th Street has a bench and shelter Community Transit (DCT) services, but those and the other stop is being improved to have a stop and shelter in 2018. The stop on services are only for those with qualifying Rancho Yolo property where DCT picks up has a bench. disabilities. A better connection with Unitrans services is needed for those that do not qualify to This is an unmet transit need that is not reasonable to meet at this time. use DCT, along with a bus bench if possible. Currently residents have to walk nearly half a mile to the nearest Unitrans bus stops near 5th Street and Pole Line Road, which is challenging for many seniors. 13 A resident at the Rancho Yolo Senior Mobile Home Park would like to have more frequent service on the Yolobus route 42A and 42B. The This is not an unmet transit need. current once per hour frequency on those routes frequently cause excessive wait times or connection issues with Unitrans routes.
14 Unitrans has 15 minute service to the Davis Amtrak station, though service may not There is an issue that the Davis Amtrak train operate as early as some users may desire. The City of Davis has a Civic Lab project station where there is frequently no direct station to find cost effective alternatives to serve this market. bus service at times when trains are arriving or departing. This is an unmet transit need that is not reasonable to meet at this time.
15 Unitrans and the City of Davis support any project that would move people and provide services that work toward the goal of reducing congestion, GHG emissions etc. Promoting TNCs for this type of service would be appropriate as long as there was an Lyft/Uber should not be promoted as a way to get ADA accessible option available at the same times/frequency as the non-ADA to/from the Amtrak station in Davis, as those accessible services. companies' services are not ADA accessible and there are concerns about their labor practices. The City of Davis has a Civic Lab project to find cost effective alternatives to serve the Davis Amtrak station.
This is not an unmet transit need.
Page 3 of 8 Yolo County - Unmet Needs Comments Attachment D
Unmet Transit Need that is Unmet Transit Need that is Reasonable to Not An Unmet Transit Need Not Reasonable to Meet at this time Meet Comments 16 Service Davis Directors Frerichs and Saylor responded to this comment: The City of Davis and Yolo County and working on a solution to the transportation issues related to the Davis Migrant Center Seasonal farm workers that come to the farm The issue of rural transit service in Yolo County is being analyzed as part of a Civic worker housing in Davis do not have access to Lab project. The project is attempting to determine what the demand really is and what public transportation to get where they need to connections need to be made. The issue of rural transit may also be included in a go. Comprehensive Operational Study for which the Yolo County Transportation District has applied for a grant should hat grant be awarded.
This is an unmet transit need that is not reasonable to meet at this time.
17 Unitrans runs until 11 PM M-F, and 7 PM on weekends. Only one request for Services on Yolobus and Unitrans need to run Community Ctr. Theater (L Street). approximately 45 min to 1 hour later in order to accommodate evening show times at the This is not an unmet transit need. Community Center Theater and Mondavi Center.
18 Unitrans runs until 11 PM M-F, and 7 PM on weekends. The bus systems that serve Davis and connect the City to other communities work well but This is an unmet transit need that is not reasonable to meet at this time. services stop too early.
19 Too vague to analyze effectively. Express bus into Sacramento from Davis that leaves at a later time than the current schedule at This is not an unmet transit need. approximately 8:30 AM.
20 Too vague to analyze effectively. More frequent bus service between Davis and Woodland. This is not an unmet transit need.
21 The Yolobus route 42 A and 42 B are available throughout the day and evening to Route 43 would work for more people if there transport riders between Davis and Sacramento. were additional times in the morning that allowed working parents to catch the bus after This is not an unmet transit need. taking children to school.
22 The Yolobus route 42 A and 42 B are available throughout the day and evening to Route 43 should have a final departure from transport riders between Davis and Sacramento. Sacramento later than 5:02 PM since it is not possible to consistently leave work that early. This is not an unmet transit need.
23 There is not currently demonstrated demand for this service. The routes 42 A/B need to start running at an earlier hour on weekends. This is an unmet transit need that is not reasonable to meet at this time.
24 Unitrans could consider increasing service at peak times, but there is not demonstrated demand or funding for all day 15 minute service on the P and Q lines . Unitrans P/Q should be an every 15 minute bus like the G/J. This is an unmet transit need that is not reasonable to meet at this time.
25 Operations Davis Raise funds locally via a sales tax, payroll tax, Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs etc. initiative (self help city/county) similar to what process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate other areas in California and across the country departments. This is not an unmet transit need. have done to make more local funds available to maintain and improve their transit systems.
Page 4 of 8 Yolo County - Unmet Needs Comments Attachment D
Unmet Transit Need that is Unmet Transit Need that is Reasonable to Not An Unmet Transit Need Not Reasonable to Meet at this time Meet Comments 26 Operations Davis Yolobus route 42B does not pick up any Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs passengers in Davis prior to the Mace and 2nd process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate stop, so the only option for someone to get to departments. This is not an unmet transit need. Sacramento prior to 7AM along the 42 routes is the 42A that requires them to travel through There is insufficient demand, and there are existing Yolobus Express bus lines that run Woodland and the Airport on a trip taking nearly earlier between Davis and Sacramento. 1.5 hours. A 42B trip would take only approximately 1 hour to make the same trip if all Davis stops were served by the first run of the day. 27
Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate Unitrans and Yolobus should provide departments. This is not an unmet transit need. stops/service closer to the Mondavi Center. Yolobus services are currently available within 1/2 mile, but no demand demonstrated. Weekday Unitrans services are available within 1/4 mile, and weekend service is available 1/2 mile away at the Memorial Union.
28 Terry Bassett responded to this comment: Can look into the issue of allowing pet dogs on buses.
Put policies in place to allow pet dogs on-board Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs transit vehicles with a muzzle if necessary. process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
29 This comment will be shared with the City of Davis as well as Unitrans. The Davis City Unified School District should work with Unitrans to have more bus service Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs available that could lessen the need for parents to process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate be dropping their children off in cars at Cesar departments. This is not an unmet transit need. Chavez School. A complete streets assessment for Anderson Road with special consideration The City of Davis is undertaking a complete streets design effort on Anderson Road. given to the area around Cesar Chavez School The Davis Joint Unified School District also has a robust Safe Routes to School should be completed since there is a severe program encouraging walking and bicycling to elementary schools. congestion and safety issue with parents dropping off children in cars and conflicts with students walking and biking to school.
30
The route 43 bus is consistently late both in the Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs morning and evening. process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
31 The new Golden One Center reroutes/stop closures have really upset riders who need to get Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs to and from Davis from a stop on days there is a process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate Golden One event. The commenter has been departments. This is not an unmet transit need. stranded on more than one occasion. This is very unfair to regular riders who depend on the Yolobus is no longer rerouting the route 42 due to events, only adjusting based on 42s. police/traffic controls.
Page 5 of 8 Yolo County - Unmet Needs Comments Attachment D
Unmet Transit Need that is Unmet Transit Need that is Reasonable to Not An Unmet Transit Need Not Reasonable to Meet at this time Meet Comments 32 Operations Davis
The last AM route 43 bus has been very late Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs recently. process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
33
Current Yolobus schedules work for my needs. I Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs ride from Davis to downtown Sacramento. process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
34 Other Davis Bike share usage rules should not be based on age (currently riders/users must be 18+), but This is not a transit related comment, but will be shared with the appropriate City rather on physical size of the potential rider and and Bike Share staff. This is not an unmet transit need. ability to ride.
35 This is not an unmet transit need. Currently, paper monthly passes for Yolobus are only available at outlets in Yolo County that are Connect Card and Yolobus staff are currently looking at other retail outlets in Yolo only open between 8am-5pm on business days County. (M-F). This does not accommodate commuter riders (Davis to Sacramento) who work from 8am- 5pm on weekdays and do not like using electronic Connect Cards.
36 Barbara VaughanBechtold responded by restating the portion of her introductory remarks describing farebox recovery ratio as the portion of funds supporting a transit route or service that comes from the fares paid by riders vs. the total cost of providing What is farebox recovery ratio? the service.
This is not an unmet transit need.
37 Operations Winters Terry Bassett of Yolobus responded: Many paratransit operators in the region do currently offer reciprocity between their systems so an eligible user only has to register for one service to be eligible to use another agency’s service. Yolobus has an ADA paratransit reciprocity agreement with the other ADA paratransit providers we connect with, but agree that a universal eligibility form should be looked into and potentially Unify the process to become eligible to use Davis implemented. Community Transit and/or Yolobus Special (paratransit) services, etc. across Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs jurisdictions/operators. process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
This issue has been discussed amongst the regional transit operators. Most operators have existing reciprocal agreements, but can look into collaborating on a universal eligibility form.
38 Service Winters Director Saylor addressed this comment: Yolo County is working on the transportation issues in Winters.
Many Winters residents need to get to Vacaville The issue of rural transit service in Yolo County is being analyzed as part of a Civic for medical services (nearest variety of medical Lab project. The project is attempting to determine what the demand really is and what facilities to Winters) and others need to access connections need to be made. The issue of rural transit may also be included in a the Social Security office in West Sacramento, Comprehensive Operational Study for which the Yolo County Transportation District and with such infrequent service to/from Winters has applied for a grant should hat grant be awarded. it is challenging to make these trips and to complete them in a timely manner. Service on the existing route 220 has been expanded, and eligible customers always have ADA services available during operating hours.
This is not an unmet transit need.
Page 6 of 8 Yolo County - Unmet Needs Comments Attachment D
Unmet Transit Need that is Unmet Transit Need that is Reasonable to Not An Unmet Transit Need Not Reasonable to Meet at this time Meet Comments 39 Operations Woodland Terry Bassett responded to this comment: •When the current routes for the 42A and 42B were designed it was assumed that the City of Woodland would provide The Yolobus routes 42A & 42B that travel transportation to/from the Center. between Davis and Woodland both pass directly by the Woodland Community and Senior Center Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs but do not stop there. Riders wishing to access process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate the Center from Davis in particular must first ride departments. This is not an unmet transit need. to the Woodland County Fair Mall Transfer Point, which is not very accessible to the visually Audible announcements are made to the outside of the buses to let visually impaired impaired, and transfer to a Woodland local bus. riders know that routes are preparing to leave and their general location at the transfer center.
40 Terry Bassett responded to this comment: •When the current routes for the 42A and It is difficult to travel from Davis to Woodland to 42B were designed it was assumed that the City of Woodland would provide access the Outa Sight Group’s services, because transportation to/from the Center. riders have to travel on the 42A bus about a mile past the Woodland Community and Senior Center Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs to the County Fair Mall and then transfer to a process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate local 210 bus to get back to the Center. departments. This is not an unmet transit need. Ridership would likely increase on the routes 42 if they stopped directly at the Center.
41 A visually impaired rider must go from bus to bus Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs to check which number/route it is. Since route process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate 42A buses are frequently late and allow less than departments. This is not an unmet transit need. 5 minutes to transfer at the Mall it is nearly impossible for someone who is visually impaired to do this. YCTD frequently reviews all schedules and adjusts based on traffic patterns.
42
Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs Sell a monthly pass “Connect Card” at local process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate middle and high schools (student/youth reduced departments. This is not an unmet transit need. price). Making the bus easier for students to take could increase ridership. Mobile registration and mobile sales are available. Students would need to provide verification of eligibility for a discounted Connect Card.
43 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate departments. This is not an unmet transit need. Are "Connect Cards" sold at local retailers, and if so which ones? Only for sale at YCTD offices but can be reloaded remotely via computer, phone or app. Currently trying to bring online West Sacramento City Hall, Winters and Davis City Hall as being available retail sellers/reload locations.
44 Please work with the school districts to have a Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs drop off and pick up times that relate to the process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate school schedule? Encourage school districts to departments. This is not an unmet transit need. contact the local transit operators if their bell times change, especially if the district does not YCTD would adjust service based on demand. But can't be school bus service. offer school bus service.
45 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs Work with the City of Woodland to be sure there process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate is bus service to/from all the affordable housing departments. This is not an unmet transit need. projects in town because they need the bus the most. Yolobus currently operates within 1/4 mile of all official affordable housing complexes.
Page 7 of 8 Yolo County - Unmet Needs Comments Attachment D
Unmet Transit Need that is Unmet Transit Need that is Reasonable to Not An Unmet Transit Need Not Reasonable to Meet at this time Meet Comments 46 Service West Sacramento Need a shuttle service between the West Sacramento neighborhoods (State Streets in Existing transit services that require a single transfer are available to transport West particular) and the airport, and this could be an on- Sacramento residents to the Sacramento International Airport. call service if needed. Currently this is available at limited hours and only after transferring to a This is not an unmet transit need. 2nd or 3rd bus, which is very time consuming and is a disincentive to use transit to reach the airport.
47 There is currently no efficient way to travel from Midtown to West Sacramento neighborhoods in Existing transit services that require a single transfer are available to transport riders the evening. This trip currently requires three between midtown Sacramento and West Sacramento. buses and well over an hour travel time. There should be a single bus service to/from Midtown Sacramento to the State Streets (West This is not an unmet transit need. Sacramento) neighborhood in the evening. The street car would partly solve this after it is built.
48 Operations Amtrak This comment will be passed on to Amtrak since they do not receive State TDA funds A new Amtrak station that is opening soon in and comments regarding their services are not analyzed as part of the UTN Process. Vacaville and that the cost of train fare from that station to Davis is too high (at $26), so there Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs should be substantial discounts for youth and process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate seniors to make the service more affordable for departments. This is not an unmet transit need. those who need it.
49 This comment will be passed on to Amtrak since they do not receive State TDA funds and comments regarding their services are not analyzed as part of the UTN Process. Currently, anyone under 15 cannot ride on Amtrak alone even if for many it would be the Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs more affordable travel option they cannot use the process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate service, so the age threshold should be lowered. departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
50 This comment will be passed on to Amtrak since they do not receive State TDA funds and comments regarding their services are not analyzed as part of the UTN Process.
The Amtrak Capitol Corridor is now running fewer Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs trains to San Jose and has decreased weekend process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate service. departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
Page 8 of 8 Yuba and Sutter - Unmet Transit Needs Comments Attachment E
Not An Unmet Transit Need Unmet Transit Need that is Unmet Transit Need that is Reasonable to Comments Not Reasonable to Meet at this time Meet There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the counties of Yuba and Sutter, including the Unincorporated Areas, and the cities within. All operational comments are shared with the transit operator, and/or the appropriate jurisdiction. 1 Operations Yuba & Sutter Counties (Yuba- Sutter Transit service area) Yuba-Sutter Transit Commuter buses to better connect/coordinate with the Sacramento Regional Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs Transit route 30 on J Street, specifically arriving in process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate Sacramento before 9 AM to allow someone to departments. This is not an unmet transit need. catch the RT route 30.
2 Side mirrors on the buses facing the wrong way, which may prevent drivers from seeing Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs passengers alongside the bus and cause a safety process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate issue. departments. This is not an unmet transit need. 3
Glad the Yuba-Sutter Transit System exists. Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate departments. This is not an unmet transit need. 4 There is a bottleneck on the routes 4A and 4B (Government Center) and route 1 going over the Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs bridge into Marysville and returning from Yuba process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate City. These bottlenecks frequently cause riders to departments. This is not an unmet transit need. miss a connections needed to arrive at work or school on-time.
5 Route 1 going from Yuba City to Yuba College is usually on time, but the reverse trip is frequently Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs late and packed with riders. process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate departments. This is not an unmet transit need. 6 Some Yuba-Sutter Transit drivers are not Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs consistent in application of rules. process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate departments. This is not an unmet transit need. 7 The number 4 routes have only hourly service. The 4B direction are usually on-time, but the 4A Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs direction are consistently 20-25 minutes late process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate causing missed connections. departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
8 Service Yuba County We have only heard from one resident of this mobile home park related to the need for transit service to/from that location. This location is approximately 4 miles north of the Marysville City border. There is not currently demonstrated demand for this Bus service, even just once per week and/or DAR, service nor a safe place for a bus to stop or turnaround were service to be is needed north of Marysville to serve a mobile implemented. home park approximately 4 miles north of the City with a large population of seniors who cannot This is an unmet transit need that is not reasonable to meet at this time. drive.
Page 1 of 2 Yuba and Sutter - Unmet Transit Needs Comments Attachment E
Not An Unmet Transit Need Unmet Transit Need that is Unmet Transit Need that is Reasonable to Comments Not Reasonable to Meet at this time Meet 9 Operations Yuba City Yuba-Sutter Transit Dial-a-Ride (DAR) should drop off riders closer to/at the modular buildings Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs that serve the Sutter Yuba Behavioral Health process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate Services offices that provide services to many departments. This is not an unmet transit need. clients that have mobility challenges and have a very difficult time walking the long distance from where the DAR services currently drop off riders (200-300 yards away).
10
Yuba-Sutter Commuter route 699 provide drop off Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs at the Sam’s Club (Yuba City) stop prior to 9 AM process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate departments. This is not an unmet transit need. 11 Operations Live Oak Southbound Live Oak route should always serve Yuba College rather than only serving that Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs location by reservation. process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
12 Operations Marysville To save time eliminate the loop at the One-Stop in Marysville on the routes 4A/B. The 4A would turn right off Ramirez onto 12th Street and continue to B Street, and the 4B would come from B Street (on 12th Street) and turn left onto Ramirez. This Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs change would remove two stops (apt. building on process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate Simpson and One Stop on Yuba St.) but would departments. This is not an unmet transit need. require a minimal increase in walking for riders. The time saved could be used to lengthen the window for the 4A and 4B at the Government Center Transfer Point.
13 Operational comments are not analyzed as part of the unmet transit needs Add a stop on the route 4A before the bridge on B process, and are passed on to transit agencies to share with the appropriate Street and one at the High School. departments. This is not an unmet transit need.
14 Service We have only heard from one person related to the need for transit service to/from that location at the time requested. This location would take approximately 1.5-2 No service available to/from Yolo County or hours to reach via bus. There is not currently demonstrated demand for this service , downtown Sacramento to Marysville late in the and any service would have to operate outside of the current Yuba-Sutter Transit evening to serve workers from Yolo County/Cache operating hours/days and service area. Creek casino a large number of which live in the Marysville/Yuba City area due to significantly This is an unmet transit need that is not reasonable to meet at this time. lower housing costs.
Page 2 of 2 Attachment F
TRANSIT NEEDS PUBLIC HEARING IN THE CITY OF GALT MINUTES
October 26, 2017 – 2:00 P.M.
The hearing was conducted by Mark Crews representing the SACOG Board of Directors, with Barbara VaughanBechtold and Diego Ayala of SACOG staff, Linda Berry of the Agency on Aging Area 4 representing the Sacramento County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council (Sacramento County SSTAC), and Dan Klinker and Becky Egleston representing South County Transit Link (SCT/Link).
Director Crews opened the hearing. Ms. VaughanBechtold gave a brief overview of the unmet transit needs hearing process. Mr. Klinker described the existing SCT/Link transit services.
Five attendees not on the hearing panel attended the Unmet Transit Needs hearing. 1 person testified at the hearing, and 3 items of correspondence was received. All Unmet Transit Needs comments are listed below.
Director Crews opened the hearing to public comment.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY
1. Representative of ACC Rides, Sacramento, CA
ACC Rides staff shared that they now offer service to the Delta area including Courtland, Hood- Franklin, Walnut Grove and Isleton. This is a volunteer based service that provides on average 400 rides per month to get riders to necessary appointments and services they could not otherwise reach on their own. They would like to work with South County Transit/Link to coordinate as much as possible.
CORRESPONDENCE
1. Tracy Wong, Elk Grove, CA
Hello- my name is Tracy Wong and I work as a dialysis social worker at Fresenius Medical Care in Elk Grove, CA. I have worked at this clinic for several years and have never been able to find any affordable, door to door, and reservable transportation services that connect the Galt and Elk Grove areas. By "reservable", I mean that people would be able to schedule their ride needs ahead of time so as to not be restricted to a fixed route schedule.
I have noticed that this has been a major need over the years, as there are elderly and very medically compromised people in the Galt area who are left trying to drive themselves to and from dialysis in Elk Grove (or perhaps Lodi) if they do not happen to have family members or close friends who are available to help transport them.
You may feel free to contact me via e-mail or by phone on Mondays. Thanks so much for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Tracy Wong
Page 1 of 21 Attachment F
2. Nan Parquette, Rancho Murieta, CA
It is my concern that we have no public transportation for our rural area for the elderly.
I see there is a Senior/Disability Mobility Study. I would like to comment on this need.
I live in Rancho Murieta. The only bus service that stops here is the Amador Bus. This is not satisfactory for our elderly that live in the area. There is a need for exclusive Senior/Disability services that would be able to transport to Sacramento, Folsom, and El Dorado Hills door to door. I believe Paratransit, Inc. does this. However I have found that the pricing is far and above what most can afford and they would only come by appointment.
It is my hope that I can get valid information from you as to what options there are and what would be the best way to approach those in charge. I have been in contact with Commissioner Susan Frost and have several pages of signatures of those that want Senior Services closer to Rancho Murieta.
Thank you for your time and if there is a form I need to fill out or whatever is needed to get this problem addressed, please contact me.
Barbara VaughanBechtold, SACOG staff, shared information with Ms. Parquette regarding how the existing commuter bus services provided by Amador Bus Line and paid for by the County of Sacramento and how it is possible to make transfers to connect to Sacramento RT, Folsom Stage Line and El Dorado Transit. Paratransit, Inc. does not currently serve the community of Rancho Murieta as it is outside of the Sacramento RT District as well as the Sacramento Urbanized Area.
3. Jose Guerrero, Galt, CA
The South County Transit goes from Lodi to CRC/Kaiser with a stop at City Hall in Galt. I would like to see a stop added at the Park and Ride in Galt as many students are others needing to get to Kaiser would benefit greatly. Even if the Park and Ride stop was only offered sometimes (similar to the RT light rail Gold line to Folsom) that would be greatly appreciated.
Page 2 of 21 Attachment F
TRANSIT NEEDS PUBLIC HEARING IN THE CITY OF FOLSOM MINUTES
October 30, 2017 – 4:00 P.M.
The hearing was conducted by Barbara VaughanBechtold of SACOG staff, Will Tift of the Agency on Aging Area 4 representing the Sacramento County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council (Sacramento County SSTAC), Matt Mauk representing Folsom Stage Line Transit, James Drake of Sacramento Regional Transit.
Ms. VaughanBechtold provided a brief overview of SACOG and the unmet transit needs hearing process. Two people not on the hearing panel attended the Unmet Transit Needs hearing. 1 person testified at the hearing, and 1 item of correspondence was received. All Unmet Transit Needs comments are below.
Mr. Mauk described the existing Folsom Stage Line Transit services. Mr. Drake described Regional Transit services.
Ms. VaughanBechtold opened the hearing to public comment.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY
1. Coco Cocozzella, Sacramento, CA
Ms. Cocozzella is active in a variety of transit, equity, and health related advocacy groups including Sacramento Transit Riders Union. Ms. Cocozzella works in Folsom and considers herself a “choice rider”. She thinks that many people may have an unsubstantiated “fear” of public transportation based on their person perceptions rather than reality in the community.
Ms. Cocozzella would like to see the light rail to/from Folsom run later so that people could enjoy more of what Folsom has to offer after 7 PM. She would also like to see more frequent bus service in Folsom, as well as throughout the Sacramento RT service area to make riding transit a more viable and convenient option for more people. The Folsom Stage Line should serve the light rail ½ hourly rather than hourly, since once per hour service is not frequent enough to make local transit a viable option. If Folsom and RT light rail ran later then more people would use transit not just for commuting, but also for night and weekend events at the Folsom Lake College Harris Center.
Transit should advertise to choice riders and find out why people do and don’t use transit.
CORRESPONDENCE
1. Sandy Frith, Folsom, CA
I would be thrilled if Folsom Dial-A-Ride service were to be available on weekends. My mother who is in assisted living and has no other means of getting out of the building on weekends.
Page 3 of 21 Attachment F
TRANSIT NEEDS PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT DISTRICT MINUTES
October 23, 2017 – 2:00 P.M.
The hearing was conducted by Jay Schenirer representing SACOG Board of Directors, Barbara VaughanBechtold staff at SACOG, Sarah Poe of the Sacramento Regional Transit District, Mary Harding of Paratransit, Inc., Mike Costa of e-tran (City of Elk Grove Transit), and Margaret Morowiak of the Agency on Aging Area 4 representing the Sacramento County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council.
Director Schenirer opened the public hearing. Ms. VaughanBechtold provided a brief overview of SACOG and the unmet transit needs hearing process. 10 people not on the hearing panel attended the Unmet Transit Needs hearing. Seven attendees testified at the hearing, and 11 items of correspondence were received. All Unmet Transit Needs comments are below.
Ms. Poe described the existing RT transit services and the Route Optimization Study that is currently underway. Ms. Harding described Paratransit, Inc. services. Mr. Costa described the major changes coming to e-tran’s fixed route service (local and commuter) on October 29, 2017.
Director Schenirer opened the hearing to public comment.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY
1. Mike Barnbaum, Sacramento, CA
Mr. Barnbaum’s comments were delivered at the UTN hearing in Yolo County (Davis) and have been included here because they regard Sacramento Regional Transit services:
Mr. Barnbaum commented on the recent opening of the Delta Shores shopping center located in south Sacramento off of Interstate 5. He stated that there is currently no transit service to this large shopping center making it impossible for potential job seekers or shoppers without access to a person vehicle to access Delta Shores. The shopping center is located more than 2 miles from the nearest existing bus route the RT #56.
2. Michelle Pariset, Sacramento, CA
Ms. Pariset is a member of the Sacramento Transit Riders Union. She requested clarification of the effect of the Unmet Transit Needs findings on the Transportation Development Act (TDA) Local Transportation Fund (LTF) versus the effect on the State Transit Assistance (STA) funding.
Barbara VaughanBechtold, SACOG staff, explained that within the Sacramento Regional Transit District TDA LTF funds could only be used for transit purposes. She went on to clarify that outside the RT District LTF funds could be used for streets and roads purposes only if there were not unmet transit needs that were reasonable to meet and the use of those funds for non-transit purposes did not affect the current level of transit service offered.
3. Virginia Wieneke, Sacramento, CA
Page 4 of 21 Attachment F
Ms. Wieneke represents ACC Rides that provides volunteer based rides in accessible vehicles to underserved communities comprised of 10 zip codes in south Sacramento City/County including the Delta area and the City of Elk Grove. A majority of their riders are Vietnamese, Mien, Hmong, and Chinese and ACC Rides has drivers and staff that speak those languages in order to assist their riders and make them more comfortable. Many of the ACC Rides passengers have mobility issues that necessitate the use of a wheelchair and prevent them from readily transferring to other services.
Ms. Wieneke also provided written testimony shown below from a number of ACC rides clients:
See following page
Page 5 of 21 Attachment F
Page 6 of 21 Attachment F
4. Sarah Kerber, Sacramento, CA
Ms. Kerber is a member of the Sacramento Transit Riders Union. She and the Sacramento Transit Riders Union want to see increased transit mobility access, coverage, and services for seniors and people with disabilities. The extension (time of service) of night and weekend services. Have public transit access to the new Sacramento Airpark development, especially considering the large number of jobs provided by the Amazon Distribution Center there. There
Page 7 of 21 Attachment F
should be consideration taken for Golden 1 Center employees who do not leave when events are over, but instead 1-2 hours after by which time all extended “special event” services have stopped. It is important to have real time transit information available to the public in both visual and audio formats. Include more languages on stop and way finding signage beyond just English and sometimes Spanish. RT should complete an audit of all bus shelters and light rail stations, with a focus on ADA accessibility. For stops that do not meet ADA accessibility standards those stops should not be removed but improved to meet standards. For proposed Watt/I-80 improvements/redesign consideration should be made for American River College students since the current proposed changes would negatively impact those students. The Riders Union encourages RT to looks for and hopefully find funding to bring back the “super senior” fare for those 75 years of age and older. Outreach needs to be done in a variety of other languages. Public hearings should be held outside the regular 9-5 hours when possible. RT provides shuttles to/from the W-X parking area for Golden 1 Center events, but not all employees can afford or have access to personal vehicles so the Kings management should be encouraged to see who needs transit services to get to and from work on event days/nights and potentially fund a shuttle/transportation to assist them in getting home.
5. Lynne Goldsmith, Sacramento, CA
Ms. Goldsmith stated that she agreed that more hearings should be held in the evening, and that more hearings needed to be held.
Ms. VaughanBechtold responded after the hearing closed that holding evening hearings after work hours was frequently challenging since it was required that there be transit access to and from all hearing locations. She also said that the number of hearings was set by the SACOG Board and is a reflection of the large increase in the number of electronic (email) comments received and the relatively small number of comments received at the in person hearings.
6. Elizabeth, Sacramento, CA
She asked if anything would be done to provide public transit access to the Promenade Kaiser medical facility in Elk Grove.
Mr. Costa responded that with the October 29, 2017 service changes being implemented by e- tran that the Promenade Kaiser would be served by the route 110 between 6:30 AM and 10 PM Monday –Friday.
She also requested that the route RT route 67 stop at 28 th Street to make crossing to get to the 29th Street light rail station easier and safer (this is a controlled intersection). She would like to see more outreach done prior to construction on and around transit stations/stops, and especially a large amount of outreach if a stop is to be removed/discontinued. In some cases she has seen a stop removed (either temporarily or permanently) or discontinued and outreach done after the fact. RT should make consideration to create the least amount of inconvenience to passengers. Golden 1 Center reroutes are not sufficiently noted.
RT staff responded that they would share issues of notification with their operations staff who handle that outreach.
7. Sylvia Reese, Sacramento, CA
Ms. Reese would like to see audible crossing signals at 16 th Street and at the Tiber light rail station to increase safety for visually impaired riders.
CORRESPONDENCE
Page 8 of 21 Attachment F
1. Mike Barnbaum, Sacramento, CA
On July 24, 2017, a presentation was made regarding the Watt/I-80 Light Rail Station. Historical perspective as well as current status, and upcoming initiatives were presented to the full SacRT Board of Directors. Existing service was orally presented along with an idea being tossed around for the time being of having all future bus service at a transit center adjacent to the trains, and having the upper level (Watt Avenue) closed to all bus service. While this, for now, by no means whatsoever is the final decision, the idea in and of itself should be explored and taken into consideration what a route by route description would look like should all Sacramento Regional Transit District bus service originate/terminate exclusively at the Watt/I- 80 Station lower level next to the boarding platform for the Blue Line Trains. With that in mind, the remainder of this Email will give a route by route description of bus service with the focus on Watt/I-80 lower level. Should a complete restructuring or elimination occur, it will be documented in the following route by route descriptions.
1: (Auburn/Greenback) Eliminate Route. See Route 103 (Auburn) and Route 80 (Elkhorn/Greenback) for replacement "corridor" service.
15: (Rio Linda/Richards Boulevards) Route would restructure to operate from Downtown Sacramento to Watt/I-80 Station lower level through McClellan Business Park. From 8th & O Streets in Downtown Sacramento, route would operate via 8th Street, I Street, Northbound Interstate Five, Richards Boulevard, Sproule Street, Sunbeam Avenue, North 16th Street, Northbound State Highway One Sixty, Del Paso Boulevard, Arden Way, Oxford Street, Del Paso Boulevard, Lampasas Avenue, Río Linda Boulevard, Grand Avenue, Winters Street, McClellan Park Drive, Forcum Avenue, Dudley Boulevard, Peacekeeper Way, Luce Avenue, Palm Street, Dudley Boulevard, James Way, Watt Avenue, and Roseville Road, entering Roseville Road Station via Station Roadway at Roseville Road, making the way via Station Roadway to the terminus at Watt/I-80 Light Rail Station. Traveling towards Downtown Sacramento, route would travel via Jiboom Street rather than Southbound Interstate Five so as to resolve an unmet transit need by stopping and serving the new Power House Science Center. This Center replaces the Discovery Museum off of Auburn Boulevard near Watt Avenue. Proposal would have route operate every fifteen minutes on weekdays and every thirty minutes on Weekends/Holidays.
19: (Town of Rio Linda) Route would restructure to serve Watt/I-80 Station Lower Level using the exact same "turn-by-turn" directions as Route 15 (Rio Linda/Richards Boulevards) does from the intersection of Watt Avenue and Roseville Road. From the Arden/Del Paso Light Rail Station to the intersection of Watt Avenue and Roseville Road, route would operate exactly the same as it does today with no route alignment changes being proposed. Proposal would have Route operate every sixty minutes, seven days a week.
26: (Fulton Avenue) Route would follow existing route alignment from the University/65th Street Station to the intersection of Watt Avenue and Longview Drive. From Watt Avenue and Longview Drive, route would operate via Longview Drive and Roseville Road, entering Roseville Road Station via Station Roadway at Roseville Road, making the way via Station Roadway to the terminus at Watt/I-80 Light Rail Station. For service to/from McClellan Business Park, See description of Route 15. Proposal would have Route operate every thirty minutes on weekdays, and every sixty minutes on Weekends/Holidays.
80: (Elkhorn/Greenback) Route would operate from Historic Folsom Station via Greenback Lane and Elkhorn Boulevard to Sacramento International Airport. This would be the route operating to the new Sacramento Metro Air Park 855,000 square foot Amazon Facility that will employ 1,500 people. This route would replace Route 1 (Auburn/Greenback) along Greenback Lane. Proposal would have route operate every 30 minutes, seven days a week.
84: (Watt Avenue South) Route would operate exactly as Route 84 currently operates, up to the
Page 9 of 21 Attachment F
intersection of Watt Avenue and Longview Drive. Route would then follow alignment of Route 26, described earlier, from Watt Avenue and Longview Drive to the Watt/I-80 Station. All service North of Watt Avenue and Longview Drive would be eliminated. See restructured Route 85 for Routing North of the Watt/I-80 Station. This route would be proposed to operate every thirty minutes, seven days a week.
85: (Watt Avenue North) Route would begin at Watt Avenue and Elverta Road and travel to the Watt/I-80 Station via Watt Avenue, Antelope Road, Walerga Road, Don Julio Boulevard, Watt Avenue, and Roseville Road, entering Roseville Road Station via Station Roadway at Roseville Road, making the way via Station Roadway to the terminus at Watt/I-80 Light Rail Station. This route would be proposed to operate every 30 minutes, seven days a week.
93: Eliminate Route. See Routes 102 and 103 for replacement service.
102: (Hillsdale Boulevard) Route would begin at Andrea Boulevard and Elkhorn Boulevard and travel via Andrea Boulevard, Hillsdale Boulevard, Madison Avenue, Air Base Drive, Watt Avenue, and Roseville Road, entering Roseville Road Station via Station Roadway at Roseville Road, making the way via Station Roadway to the terminus at Watt/I-80 Light Rail Station. This route would be proposed to operate every sixty minutes, seven days a week.
103: (Auburn Boulevard) Route would start at the Louis/Orlando Transfer Point and travel via Louis Lane, Orlando Avenue, Auburn Boulevard, College Oak Avenue, Orange Grove Avenue, Auburn Boulevard and Watt Avenue, to the intersection of Watt Avenue and Longview Drive. From Watt Avenue and Longview Drive, route would operate via Longview Drive and Roseville Road, entering Roseville Road Station via Station Roadway at Roseville Road, making the way via Station Roadway to the terminus at Watt/I-80 Light Rail Station. This route would be proposed to operate Weekdays every ten minutes, Saturdays every twenty minutes, and Sundays/Holidays every thirty minutes.
This concludes the major Watt/I-80 Station "Draft" route restructuring that addresses, to the best of its ability, moving all routes from the upper level to the lower level. As a result, Watt Avenue south of Roseville Road and North of Longview Drive would have service eliminated so as to defer all service to the lower level of the Watt/I-80 Station. Route 15 would replace both Routes 26 and 85 inside McClellan Business Park. With all the route restructuring and route eliminating, the lower level of Watt/I-80 would have a net gain of one bus route.
This concludes this preliminary "draft" major service changes addressing the issues and concerns at the Watt/I-80 Station. Should you have any further ideas, questions, or concerns, please feel free to send them my way. I'm glad I could be of help on this project.
Sincerely,
Mike Barnbaum, Founder "Ride Downtown 916"
2. Celina Ing, Sacrament0, CA
What are the transit plans for access to the new Delta Shores in south Sacramento? Since a light rail connection is several years away, could the current route Sacramento Regional Transit #56 bus be redesigned to include a short route inclusion through the Delta Shores area to meet present ridership needs?
Thank you for your consideration.
3. Jeff Brown, Sacramento, CA
Page 10 of 21 Attachment F
Bus Route 62 and the Blue Line Watt I-80 Bound Light Rail train are duplicative and the bus route should be moved to another location where it is more needed.
RT should bite the bullet and provide and promote FREE PARKING at any light rail station north of Meadowview Road all the way into downtown, since the first/last mile in this region is offset by simply riding ones bike/driving all the way into downtown rather than driving/ riding to pay to park to catch and pay a fare on the light rail.
Doing this would also alleviate the negative effects of the disaster that is known as the Freeport Boulevard Road Diet, with the blunder known as the triple merge from Sutterville Road onto northbound Freeport this project has caused. What a catastrophe that "improvement" is.
In this respect, SacRT can harness a more captive audience, while helping take cars off the road rather than sneaking another parking charge into the cost of service and nickel-and- diming customers.
4. Janet Kellam, Sacramento, CA
I have used public transit only intermittently over the years. I'm fortunate to have always owned a car so I've mostly succumbed to the comfort and convenience of driving even though I would like our state and community to reduce congestion and pollution by adequately supporting public transit. The following will list my personal disincentives for greater public transit use and offer a few suggestions for improvements. My suggestions are of low importance because I doubt I'll ever be a regular rider and directing resources to cater to me wouldn't be a wise use of funding. I'm only an interested member of the community and one whose vote you might want to pursue.
I worked near the capital building for a time and commuted by light rail. Even though the cost of the monthly pass was subsidized it was barely worth the trouble. The alternative, a space in a parking garage was very competitive. Taking public transit lengthened my commute time and had me standing outside in the elements to make a transfer between blue and gold lines. Many of the downtown transit options have 15 to 20 minute intervals between pickups which seems generous and reasonable until you experience the hardship of adding errands that may take you outside of the downtown core with longer pickup intervals and stops further from your desired destination, or where you encounter non-existent pickup options such as when services are discontinued after hours or on weekends, or during non-peak hours, or for whole seasons. Without any errand runs my commute time was triple what driving would have been.
Next, my employer moved us out to the North Natomas area. The one-plus hour commute morning and night might not have been the deal-breaker but then my mother was disabled. To honor her wish to stay in her home we hired day workers to care for her. At night and on weekends I filled that role. There were no commute options to get me there and then, at the end of my 'shift', to get home in time to prepare for work the next day.
Next, my employer moved us out to Rancho Cordova. After my mother passed away I tried to use public transit again. The bus route near my home was canceled. I might have used a park and ride lot to bridge the gap but there is something fundamentally wrong about charging us to park. The parking lots were supposed to be an incentive to get us out of our cars, not a new way to raise the cost of the 'service' without seeming to. I looked for alternatives, like parking at the Walmart store on 65th Street but no combination of routes would have gotten me to work on time. I tried riding my bike but I'm old and couldn't ride two hours in dust, heat, rain, and cold. I bought a second bike hoping to get a locker at both ends of my commute so that I could ride from the light rail stop to the job site and the four miles each in the morning and
Page 11 of 21 Attachment F night from house to light rail and back. Nobody returned my call when I called the bus locker phone number and left a message regarding locker availability. There are gaps in your transit plan that can't seem to be bridged. There is no bus route or reasonable combination of routes that could have carried me to work from south Sacramento. In the early morning I would have had to ride in the dark on dangerous, high-speed, narrow streets for long distances before I could find a bus to carry me and the bike part of the way to work. Back in the day there was also a frequent risk that the bike racks might be full which could again be an issue in the future. In your minds you may think the gap is filled with the light rail line but I'm 5'4” tall with a bad knee, torn right rotator cuff and lung disease. Getting the bike onto a bus rack is hard enough for me but the steep steps of the light rail cars would have been impossible for me to manage, never mind whether I could stay upright at the back of the car between stops. Sure, there are hooks for hanging bikes but try that with my shoulder. And you know very well that empty cars aren't economical so you limit runs in order to make sure they are often too crowded for sitting much less for bikes or carts. I was told I could not bring the bike up the handicap ramp. Later I was told there is no rule forbidding me from doing so, but it would be up to the driver whether to allow it or not. If I'm subject to the whim of the driver how does that get me to work reliably? Or allow me to catch the last run of the night to get home from a remote location?
Now I'm retired and I tried again. Running errands still takes all day because I live outside of the Sacramento King's domain where light rail cars must be frequent, safe and clean for their needs. It was a dumb idea to plop them in the middle of downtown, creating commute headaches especially doing so with generous public gifts and subsidies. We were not given the option of a public vote as I believe they knew how it would probably go. We warned them of the drawbacks, some of which you are now trying to cope with. I for one, resent the fact that so much is being lavished on them and the oh-so-hip downtown core. They had a perfectly good sports palace with acres of expensive parking spaces in North Natomas. And as for the downtown, much of it is accessible to residents by foot or bicycle; it's well lit, paved and flat as a pancake so how is their need so great? Out here where I live it's another story. We are wanted only for however much revenue we can bring to the downtown. If we don't want to pay exorbitant sums on parking and we try to use public transit we're expected to do it with infrequent pickups, only on weekdays, never on holidays, never very late in the evening and often without even a bench to sit on.
I have fewer errands to run but I still own my car. Continuing to support the costs of car ownership on top of the cost of public transit doesn't pencil out.
I considered getting rid of the car until this summer. One shopping day is particularly memorable. I wondered why the route near my house runs to the 65th Street, instead of the Power Inn, light rail station. The obvious reason is to turn the 65th Street station into a connector hub in order to cram the maximum number of riders on each car using the fewest bus routes. I boarded a car with my grocery cart at a quieter station. At each stop more and more handicapped, shoppers with carts and families with strollers loaded via the ramp. I needed to get off before the 65th Street station where I suspected most of the others were headed so they could make other connections. Seven others had to exit the car to make room for me to deboard. Even if the other passengers didn't resent the inconvenience, I was embarrassed and even ashamed to use such a stressed system when I could have perfectly well driven my car.
I own season tickets to attend plays at the B Street Theater and for the Sacramento Republic FC soccer games. I went to a play and brought along my bike because bus route 65 which would take me from Florin mall to home doesn't run late enough in the evening. As it was, I nearly missed the last route 67/68 of the night to get me back to Florin Mall. Next, I tried to find a way to get to and from the soccer games. I found that there were no routes that would have allowed me to walk from the field to a stop before the runs shut down for the night. I even
Page 12 of 21 Attachment F
noticed that they didn't run later to accommodate the State Fair. The fair draws thousands of people from across the state and maybe beyond. Many communities would go to great effort and expense to host such an event but we can't be bothered to add a couple of runs to the schedule to accommodate the crowds. Fairs and soccer games just aren't Kingly enough. I also researched the light rail schedules to see if it would be worth my while trying to fight to get my bike on light rail via the handicap ramp for the game night return trips. Even if I made it from the game to the Arden Way light rail station before the last run of the night I would have had to face a four mile bike ride in the dark at my end of town. Do I think transit would be any more useful to me if or when the soccer stadium is built out on Richards Blvd? Your track record doesn't encourage me.
Riding wasn't all doom and gloom. I appreciated the new higher capacity bike racks although I wonder, after needing the bus to kneel for me, how much more difficult would it be to lower the rack to the ground where I wouldn't have to struggle with lifting and getting myself dirty by struggling near the tires and chain. Most of the drivers are good drivers, patient, and helpful. The office staff I've encountered were also patient and helpful. The online options have improved.
Suggestion time. As a general rule I despise bond funding because it is borrowing and has to be repaid with interest. I would prefer things to be funded with operating revenue or direct taxpayer funding. Just identify the cost of your service and charge enough to cover it. But some things, like libraries and transit systems are public utilities which the whole community needs to pay for on an ongoing basis. Things with fixed, one-time costs would be best paid for with a tax appropriation but politicians decided governments should not accumulate surpluses, not save up for large capital projects, or for emergencies. We have no other choice but to borrow. I actually vote for some tax increases. I voted for the library bond funding. I would vote for public transit funding. But, if you present me with a grab bag bond measure you get a firm 'no'. I especially will not vote for any measure that would fund high-speed rail. The bullet train is a non-starter, a billions or trillion dollar boondoggle. How stupid they must think we are, claiming that it would ease congestion. How many of us commute to jobs out of town? Most commutes are local, to work and shopping. Period. I would live more lifetimes than one before I would step foot on a California bullet train. So, if you hitch your hopes on a bond issue and there's any chance of funds going to the bullet train, count my vote out. Nor do I want to vote for road building and repair. I don't like sprawl which, if permitted, should be paid for by the developers set to get rich off of the sales. Using public transit is less attractive when good, well maintained roads are around. I'm not in such a hurry to pay for road maintenance but would be more amenable if they proposed funding for it by itself, again, not in a grab bag bond measure. If you need more money, tell me what you would do with it, what that would cost, and then ask for it. All by yourself. Let the other hopefuls do the same for their wants and needs.
This ends my rant, not that I couldn't go on but I'm sure I've put you through enough for one day.
5. Daniel Yerushalmi, Sacramento, CA
I moved to redeveloped Mather Air Force Base ("Independence at Mather"), a planned community, in 2001, hoping and hoping RT would extend a bus line to connect to Light Rail. Still no joy--a planned community, yet 15+ years without transit (have to drive 5 miles to get to light rail station). Can anyone help?
6. Sonja Bartley, Sacramento, CA
My retired father lives in the Vintage Park Community and there is no public transportation within a reasonable walking distance from his neighborhood at Elk Grove Florin and Vintage Park Drive. He no
Page 13 of 21 Attachment F
longer drives and there are many others in the area that also need public transportation. This area is underserved and should have regular public transit to established grocery shopping centers, the nearby community college Cosumnes River College, and other bus routes to downtown Sacramento or downtown Elk Grove.
Barbara VaughanBechtold, SACOG staff, shared information with Ms. Bartley regarding Paratransit, Inc. service her father may qualify for to get where he needs to go if he is otherwise unable to access fixed route transit that exists within ½ mile of his home.
No Unmet Transit Needs hearing was held in Elk Grove, so any comments regarding e-tran are included in these minutes. Also, comments regarding “other” regional service or operational needs are presented here.
7. Alex Kenefick, Davis, CA
Connect Card - I need the connect card to convert one-way fares into a day pass once I pay the value of a day-pass. It is unacceptable that if I ride 2 RT and 2 Yolobus Express over the course of a day, I will pay $12 for transit, when a $7 pre-purchased day pass would have gotten me on the same buses. Lowering barriers to transit ridership means preventing situations where riders are being charged $12 for a day’s worth of transit because local agencies are unable to co-operate.
I would also like to see Connect Card work on the Capitol Corridor, not at the fully-loaded one-time rate, but at the ten-trip ticket rate, or cheaper.
I need SACOG to present a unified scheduling effort to help people get information in one place about commuter trip options from Davis to Sacramento. I would like SACOG to combine information about Capital Corridor trains and bus services over the causeway.
The level of coordination between RT Light Rail and the Sacramento Valley is poor and one-sided. Connecting trains only go to Sunrise light rail station. Certainly populations living in northeast Sacramento, South Sacramento, and Township 9 could benefit from a good transit connection to the Sacramento Valley Station. Perhaps routes to and away from the Sacramento Valley Station and the required transfers could be publicized more. Transit should converge on the Sacramento Valley Station before each Capitol Corridor and San Joaquin departure and transit should pulse outward from the station after each arrival. Accelerate access improvement plans for bikes, transit, and people walking to the Sacramento Valley Station -- walking between the platforms and the station is a drag.
8. Fred Deneke, West Sacramento, CA
I wish there were one app for all Sacramento transit agencies where we could determine the actual time that a bus will reach a stop. Many times RT buses are close to being on schedule, while at other times RT and Yolo Transit buses are far behind schedule. Since most Yolo Transit buses and some RT buses operate only once per hour, having accurate information could really help me plan the best transit route to go roundtrip between West Sacramento and south Sacramento.
9. Betty Henderson-Sparks, Elk Grove, CA
Ms. Henderson-Sparks provided multiple comments shown below:
The proposed new alignment of E Tran leaves me stranded on weekends. I find that unacceptable. There won't be a bus within 2 miles of my home. I live 3.5 miles from Kohl's and 2 miles from Raley's w and won't be able to get to either of them. I just moved here. You have no idea how this affects me. I commute to Sacramento and I do appreciate the plans for weekday local and commute service. However, I don't drive. So on the weekends when I am off work, I can't go anywhere. Unless someone takes me. How depressing.
Page 14 of 21 Attachment F
When will the proposed transit changes take place? I sure would like the 66 or its replacement bus to start earlier in the morning between 6-6:15 AM to transfer to the RT route 88 to access her workplace in South Natomas. Also, a direct bus to Raley's at Franklin and Elk Grove Boulevard would be nice. And why doesn't a bus run up & down Elk Grove Boulevard all the way? Finally, what will happen with the weekend shuttle? Thanks.
I just moved to Elk Grove in July, from South Sacramento.
I find that there should be more options for commuters, especially from Elk Grove and Harbour Point. I currently take the 66 to and from work. It would be nice if I could take an earlier bus and have more choices coming home.
Weekend service is appalling. 3 busses in the morning and 3 busses in the afternoon on Elk Grove and no bus service on Laguna after about 3ish in the afternoon. How does one get back home if they are in Sacramento for a Saturday event? Get to the College and it's after 4:00. Then what? The weekend service should run until at least 5 PM.
Also, there is no one single bus that runs down Elk Grove Boulevard all the way or down Laguna all the way. Those are main thoroughfares. It would be nice if both those streets had dedicated bus lines that ran from near the I-5 corridor to Old Town. Then have other busses run up and down other streets, such as Big Horn, Bruceville, Franklin, and of course, Harbour Point.
I used to have Paratransit and sometime in the future I will need it again.
10. Sacramento Transit Riders Union, Sacramento, CA
The Sacramento Transit Riders Union submitted a number of comments related to the Sacramento Regional Transit District via a letter shown below.
Page 15 of 21 Attachment F
Page 16 of 21 Attachment F
Page 17 of 21 Attachment F
Page 18 of 21 Attachment F
Page 19 of 21 Attachment F
11. Sacramento Transit Advocates and Riders, Sacramento, CA
The Sacramento Transit Advocates and Riders organization submitted a number of comments related to the Sacramento Regional Transit District via a letter shown below.
December 16, 2017 Sacramento Area Council of Governments Barbara VaughanBechtold, Associate Planner 1415 L Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: STAR (Sacramento Transit Advocates and Riders) Comments on Unmet Transit Needs
Dear Ms. VaughanBechtold :
STAR supports increased investment in public transportation. STAR believes that full funding for public transit is imperative in order to ensure that people have access to jobs, housing, health care, education, grocery stores, and childcare among other needs.
The Unmet Transit Needs program is meant to identify and address public transit services not currently provided for persons to reach: employment, medical assistance, shop for food or clothing, to obtain social services such as health care, county welfare programs and educational programs.
STAR members have identified the following unmet transit needs that they would like to be addressed:
1• RT provide free transfers for all fares. Currently, only riders who use a phone App or Connect Card have access to a free 90 minute transfer. We believe that this negatively impacts riders who regularly use cash fares and may not be able to easily access these programs which are available in English only and require a form of credit card to participate. We request that additional funding be made available for free transfers for all fares.
2• Extending night and weekend service on all bus routes and light rail. Specifically, workers and residents express the difficulty of working or commuting when service ends at 7:00pm or is not available on weekends.
3• Better wayfinding information be provided to riders at bus stops and light rail stations in English and other languages. Currently many stations and stops lack any information on catching transfers, route timetables, and basic information in languages other than English. We request additional funding to improve the signage around stations and stops.
4• permanently extending student fare discount program. RT recently adopted a fare discount for students in the Sacramento region. Sacramento has the highest student fares in
Page 20 of 21 Attachment F the state, per an article in the Sacramento Bee. Students should not have to miss school because they don't have bus fare.
STAR believes fully - funded and equitable public transportation is essential. Please include this letter in the public record.
Sincerely,
STAR Delphine Cathcart, for Sacramento Transit Advocates and Riders
Page 21 of 21 Attachment G
TRANSIT NEEDS PUBLIC HEARING IN YOLO COUNTY, INCLUDING THE CITIES OF DAVIS, WEST SACRAMENTO, WINTERS, AND WOODLAND MINUTES
November 6, 2017 – 6:00 P.M. CITY OF DAVIS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 23 RUSSELL BLVD., DAVIS
Conducted by Don Saylor of the SACOG Board; Lucas Frerichs of the Davis City Council and SACOG Board; Barbara VaughanBechtold, SACOG staff; Terry Bassett representing the Yolo County Transportation District (YCTD); Jeff Flynn representing Unitrans; James Haven representing Davis Community Transit (DCT); and Yvonne Pacheco representing the Yolo County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) and Agency on Aging Area 4.
13 people testified at the hearing and 9 items of correspondence were received.
Mr. Saylor opened the hearing at 6:00 p.m. He introduced members of the hearing panel and explained that SACOG is responsible for administering the Transportation Development Act (TDA), which provides funds for transportation purposes throughout the SACOG region.
Ms. VaughanBechtold explained that after the hearing, the Yolo County SSTAC will meet to assist SACOG staff in analyzing the hearing testimony based on criteria adopted by the Board of Directors and further explained the SSTAC membership makeup.
Mr. Bassett provided an overview of the services provided by YCTD, including recent and potential upcoming service changes and potential additional services in West Sacramento. Mr. Flynn briefly summarized the services provided by Unitrans. Mr. Haven summarized the services provided by DCT.
Mr. Saylor opened the public hearing comment period.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY
1. Nadia Hoshovsky, Woodland, CA
A copy of the comments Ms. Hoshovsky shared at the hearing verbally and in writing are shown on the following page.
Page 1 of 8 Attachment G
2. Lucinda Talkington, Outa Sight Group of Woodland, CA
Ms. Talkington is part of a support group that provides services and training for seniors who are losing or have lost their sight. The Outa Sight Group operates out of the Woodland Community and Senior Center located on East Street. The Yolobus routes 42A & 42B that travel between Davis and Woodland both pass directly by the Center but do not stop there. Riders wishing to access the Center from Davis in particular must first ride to the Woodland County Fair Mall Transfer Point, which is not very accessible to the visually impaired, and transfer to a Woodland local bus.
3. Trudi Stover, Outa Sight Group of Woodland, CA
Ms. Stover said that it is difficult to travel from Davis to Woodland to access the Outa Sight Group’s services, because riders have to travel on the 42A bus about a mile past the Woodland Community and Senior Center to the County Fair Mall and then transfer to a local 210 bus to get back to the Center. A visually impaired rider must go from bus to bus to check which number/route it is. Since route 42A buses are frequently late and allow less than 5 minutes to transfer at the Mall it is nearly impossible for someone who is visually impaired to do this. If the route 42A and 42B routes stopped directly at the Center ridership would likely increase due to the convenience of the service.
Page 2 of 8 Attachment G
4. Mary Jo Bryan, Davis, CA
Ms. Bryan commenter lives at the Ranch Yolo Senior Mobile Home Park located on Pole Line Road just north of 5 th Street in Davis. Many of the Park’s residents use the Davis Community Transit services, but those services are only for those with qualifying disabilities. Better connection with Unitrans services would be helpful, along with a bus bench if possible. Currently residents have to walk nearly half a mile to the nearest Unitrans bus stops at 5 th Street and Pole Line Road, which is challenging for many seniors.
5. Elizabeth Lasensly, Davis, CA
Ms. Lansensly is a resident at the Rancho Yolo Senior Mobile Home Park. She would like to have more frequent service on the Yolobus route 42A and 42B. The current once per hour frequency on those routes frequently cause excessive wait times or connection issues with Unitrans routes.
The Amtrak Capitol Corridor is now running fewer trains to San Jose and has decreased weekend service. There is an issue that the Davis Amtrak train station where there is frequently no direct station bus service at times when trains are arriving or departing.
6. Sheila Allen, Davis, CA
Ms. Allen works with the Yolo Healthy Aging Alliance and the Winters Senior Project. Ms. Allen and other Yolo County social services staff frequently assist clients with disabilities in completing the process to become eligible to use Davis Community Transit and/or Yolobus Special (paratransit) services. She would like to see a unified eligibility application process across jurisdictions.
Terry Bassett of Yolobus responded: Many paratransit operators in the region do currently offer reciprocity between their systems so an eligible user only has to register for one service to be eligible to use another agency’s service.
Ms. Allen is also working with the City of Winters on a Community Assessment, which has involved surveying and otherwise gathering community input. Transportation has come up as a big issue for many Winters residents. Many people need to get to Vacaville for medical services and other need to access the Social Security office in West Sacramento, and with such infrequent service to/from Winters it is challenging to make these trips and to complete them in a timely manner.
Director Saylor addresses some of Ms. Allen’s comments: Yolo County is working on the transportation issues in Winters.
7. Todd Edelman, Davis, CA
Mr. Edelman would like to see funds raised locally via a sales tax, payroll tax, etc. initiative (self-help county) similar to what other areas in California and across the country have done to help raise funds to maintain and improve their transit systems. He would also like to see policies put in place to allow pet dogs on-board transit vehicles with a muzzle if necessary.
Mr. Edelman also talked about a new Amtrak station that is opening soon in Vacaville and that the cost of train fare from that station to Davis is too high (at $26), so there should be substantial discounts for youth and seniors to make the service more affordable for those who need it. Currently, anyone under 15 cannot ride on Amtrak alone even if for many it would be the more affordable travel option they cannot use the service, so the age threshold should be lowered. He also does not feel that Lyft/Uber should be promoted as a way to get to/from the
Page 3 of 8 Attachment G
Amtrak station in Davis as it is not ADA accessible and there are concerns about those companies’ labor practices.
He also talked about bike share usage rules not being based on age (currently riders/users must be 18+), but rather on the physical size and ability to ride.
Mr. Edelman mentioned the need for a complete streets assessment for Anderson Road with special consideration given to the area around Cesar Chavez School since there is a severe congestion and safety issue with parents dropping off children in cars and conflicts with students walking and biking to school. He would like to see the district work with Unitrans to have more bus service available that could lessen the need for parents to be dropping their children off in cars.
8. Natalia Deeb-Sossa, Knights Landing, CA
Ms. Deeb-Sossa stated that she appreciates the buses to/from Knights Landing that run 3 days per week, but would like to see daily service. The time spread on the current services is currently too long for those want to run a simple errand leaving Knights Landing at 9:45 AM and have to wait until 3 PM to return. There is currently no bus shelter in Knights Landing for riders.
Terry Bassett of Yolobus responded: A bus shelter in Knights Landing is currently on the way to being constructed.
Ms. Deeb-Sossa also talked about the transportation issue as it affects youth who cannot participate in after school programs, tutoring, sports, etc. because the only bus home leaves immediately after the school day is completed. Youth from Knights Landing attend school in Woodland.
Ms. Deeb-Sossa also have concerns regarding the seasonal farm workers that come to the farm worker housing in Davis, but have not access to public transportation to get where they need to go.
Directors Frerichs and Saylor responded to some of Ms. Deeb-Sossa’s comments: The City of Davis and Yolo County and working on a solution to the transportation issues related to the Davis Migrant Center. There is currently a Civic Lab innovation project in place to address the issue of rural transit/transportation services including those in Knights Landing.
9. Ophelia, Davis, CA
What is farebox recovery ratio?
Barbara VaughanBechtold responded by restating the portion of her introductory remarks describing farebox recovery ratio as the portion of funds supporting a transit route or service that comes from the fares paid by riders vs. the total cost of providing the service.
10. Jean Martin, Davis, CA
Ms. Martin has chosen a car-free lifestyle. Currently she cannot go out at night to events at either the Mondavi Center in Davis or the Community Center Theater in Sacramento because bus services don’t run late enough. Services on the Yolobus would need to run approximately 45 min to 1 hour later in order to accommodate the evening show times. It would also be helpful if Unitrans and Yolobus provided stops/service closer to the Mondavi Center.
Page 4 of 8 Attachment G
Ms. Martin also stated that the first Yolobus route 42B does not pick up any passengers in Davis prior to the Mace and 2 nd stop, so the only option for someone to get to Sacramento prior to 7AM along the 42 routes is the 42A that requires them to travel through Woodland and the Airport on a trip taking nearly 1.5 hours. A 42B trip would take only approximately 1 hour to make the same trip if all Davis stops were served by the first run of the day.
The bus systems that serve Davis and connect the City to other communities work well but services stop too early.
11. Knights Landing Community Members, Knights Landing, CA
Yolobus provides good service and many residents use it. The Knights Landing Community Members would like to see added weekday service, even if smaller vehicles are used to save funds to offer more frequent service. Even if the more frequent service could just be added 1 day per week that would be helpful, as well as some weekend service.
12. Jose Perez, Woodland, CA
Mr. Perez states that Yolobus is working with the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Sacramento Airpark, and Amazon on how to potentially serve the new distribution center that opened right near the Sacramento International Airport in October 2017. There is current work being done to assess the demand for transit services to the Amazon Distribution center and the maximum workforce and vehicle miles traveled (potential reduction in VMT).
13. Mike Barnbaum, Sacramento, CA
Mr. Barnbaum represents himself and the grassroots organization Ride Downtown (Sacramento) 916. He noted that the Yolo County meeting was the only evening meeting held.
Mr. Barnbaum commented that the Yolobus routes 42A and 42B would likely have improved farebox recovery and ridership if 30 minute service was offered on these routes. He thinks this more frequent service would increase ridership of those going to the Sacramento International Airport (from which Southwest Airlines will be offering direct service to Hawaii in the near future), as well as to the Downtown Commons shopping center and Golden 1 Center.
Mr. Barnbaum shared other comments regarding Sacramento County based transit services, so those comments will be presented for the appropriate operators/areas in the Sacramento County minutes.
Terry Bassett of Yolobus made the following comments regarding some of the comments made: • All Yolobus vehicles have automatic vehicle locators on them and if vehicles are not showing up on the Yolobus vehicle location feed it is an issue of drivers not signing on and/or a technical issue. • When the current routes for the 42A and 42B were designed it was assumed that the City of Woodland would provide transportation to/from the Center. • Yolobus has an ADA paratransit reciprocity agreement with the other ADA paratransit providers we connect with, but agree that a universal eligibility form should be looked into and potentially implemented. • Can look into the issue of allowing pet dogs on buses. • Looking at different ways to service Knights Landing and want to be sure that whatever service is run is when residents want and need it. • Yolobus wants to meet the needs of youth in the communities served but cannot be a school bus service.
Page 5 of 8 Attachment G
• Jeff Flynn of Unitrans responded that his agency would look into all comments pertaining to their services.
CORRESPONDENCE
1. Robin H., Davis, CA
I would love to have access to an Express bus into Sacramento from Davis that leaves at a later time than the current schedule. Ideally a leave time of approximately 8:30 AM.
2. Tamir Rein, Davis, CA
I would like more bus service between Davis and Woodland. I rarely go to Woodland because the bus service is so infrequent during the hours operated. I’d go to Woodland more often to visit friends and shop. I do not own a care and have no intention of buying one.
3. Pippin Brehler, Davis, CA
Hi Yolobus,
Thank you for asking about whether my transit needs are met. Yolobus does not meet my needs because or route times and chronic tardiness. I live in Davis and work in downtown Sacramento. Route 43 would work very well for me, if there were additional times in the morning that allowed working parents like me to catch the bus after taking our children to school. Route 43 would work well for me if the last route started later than 5:02. It is not possible to consistently leave work that early.
When I do try to take the bus, it is almost always late, and often by more than 5 minutes. The route and time do not affect this - the bus is consistently late.
Thank you for considering these concerns. -- Best regards,
Pippin
4. May Wang, Davis, CA
Currently, paper monthly passes for Yolobus are only available at outlets in Yolo County that are only open between 8am-5pm on business days (M-F). This does not accommodate commuter riders (Davis to Sacramento) who work from 8am-5pm on weekdays and do not like using electronic Connect Cards.
5. Loretta Firestone, Davis, CA
Hi,
I am a regular rider of Yolo Transit and Unitrans as I do not drive. I regularly ride the 42 A/B and Unitrans P/Q.
Page 6 of 8 Attachment G
I regularly need the 42 A/B at an earlier hour on weekends. Also, the new Golden One Center reroutes/stop closures have really upset riders who need to get to and from Davis from a stop on days there is a Golden One event. I have been stranded on more than one occasion. This is very unfair to regular riders who depend on the 42.
I also regularly ride the Unitrans P/Q and feel it should be an every 15 minute bus like the G/J which is another line I ride regularly.
Thank you, Loretta Firestone
6. YanPing Zuo, Davis, CA
The last AM route 43 bus has been very late recently. Hope that can be improved shortly. Thanks.
YanPing Zuo Air Pollution Specialist Transportation and Toxics Division Air Resources Board, CalEPA
7. Edwina Troupe, Davis, CA
Current Yolobus schedules work for my needs. I ride from Davis to downtown Sacramento.
Edwina Troupe, JD, CPA California Department of Finance Office of State Audits and Evaluations
8. John Hingtgen, West Sacramento, CA
Dear SACOG,
I think there is an unmet need for shuttle service between the West Sacramento neighborhoods and the airport. Currently this is available at limited hours and only after transferring to the 2nd or 3rd bus, which is very time consuming and is a disincentive to use transit to reach the airport. It is not practical to use the current service which requires first taking two buses into downtown, and then taking another bus to the airport. I end up not using transit for most air trips.
I propose that you establish a single-bus/van shuttle that would run from the neighborhoods, e.g. the State Street Neighborhood, to/from the airport at most hours of the day. I believe the airport operates at least 18 hours per day for air service currently, so the bus should do the same. This could be an on-call service if needed. I have tried using the Super Shuttle, but they stranded me (and repeatedly gave bad information out by phone) one morning so I missed a flight, resulting in almost spending Dec. 24th sleeping in the Denver airport. As a result, Super Shuttle is only useable when coming from the airport, so as not to miss outbound flights. An effective transit service would result in no need for missed flights. A light rail route from downtown to the airport would partly serve this need, but in addition there should be a way to get from the State Streets to the light rail quickly.
A better alternative would be a light rail stop in West Sacramento, with a rapid shuttle/bus from the State Streets to the light rail station. The light rail should eventually be routed southward on Jefferson Blvd. to the Southport neighborhood, which would also make it useable to residents west of Jefferson and near Park Blvd. In addition, a streetcar on Park Blvd. would
Page 7 of 8 Attachment G
serve these residents and could connect with the Transit Center on Merkley Ave. Having a population of about 50,000 residents, there is no reason not to provide rapid service to the airport for West Sacramento. (It is not practical to travel through Davis or Woodland on a trip to the airport.) In addition to residential needs, community and state buildings also could be served by better transit.
In addition, there is currently no efficient way to travel from Midtown to West Sacramento neighborhoods in the evening. This trip currently requires three buses and well over an hour travel time. This is not time effective. There should be a single bus service from Midtown to the State Streets in the evening. The street car would partly solve this after it is built, but it would need to go into Midtown, say around 25th Street and L St., in order to fully meet this need.
Please email me if you would like further details and explanation of my suggestions.
John Hingtgen
9. Karen Bayne, Woodland, CA
Issues: 1. Would you be willing to sell a monthly “Connect Card” at local middle and high schools? I think SF does. Could there be an extra bonus of a slightly reduced cost for buying in bulk? Are discounted “Connect Cards” sold at local retailers? Making it easier for students to take the bus could increase ridership. 2. Could you please work with the schools to have a drop off and pick up times that relate to the school schedule? Encourage school districts to contact the local transit operators if their bell times change, especially if the district does not offer school bus service. 3. Would be helpful if you could hit all the affordable housing projects in town? Because they need the bus the most.
Thanks! Thx!
Page 8 of 8 Attachment H
TRANSIT NEEDS PUBLIC HEARING IN YUBA COUNTY AND SUTTER COUNTY, INCLUDING THE CITIES OF MARYSVILLE AND YUBA CITY MINUTES
October 11, 2017 – 2:00 P.M.
The hearing was conducted by Ricky Samayoa, representing the SACOG Board of Directors, with Barbara VaughanBechtold of SACOG staff, Angie Paras of FREED and Teja Payne of the Agency on Aging/Area 4 representing the Joint Yuba-Sutter Social Service Transportation Advisory Council, and Keith Martin of Yuba-Sutter Transit.
Director Samayoa and Ms. VaughanBechtold provided an overview of SACOG and the unmet transit needs hearing process. Mr. Martin reviewed Yuba-Sutter Transit services, the current rollout of the Connect Card universal transit fare card and Route 1 corridor improvement program. Four members of the public attended the Unmet Transit Needs hearing and testified at the hearing; one item of correspondence was received.
Director Samayoa opened the hearing for public comment.
PUBLIC COMMENT
1. Charlie Benson, Yuba City, CA
Mr. Benson works for the Sutter Yuba Behavioral Health Services assisting older adults. He stated that the Yuba-Sutter Transit Dial-a-Ride (DAR) services drop off riders are the rear of the campus, which is 200-300 yards away from the modular buildings they must get to in order to receive services. Mr. Benson said that many of their clients that use DAR services have mobility challenges and it is very difficult for them to walk the long distance and thinks the DAR buses should stop closer to/at the modular buildings.
2. Gayle Diemond, Yuba County, CA
Ms. Diemond lives in a mobile home park in Yuba County located approximately four miles north of Marysville on Highway 70. She expressed that it is frustrating to have no bus service north of Marysville. With many seniors living in this mobile home park she would like to see some type of transit service offered such as Dial-a-Ride or even once a week bus service that would allow residents that don’t drive to access services in Marysville.
3. David Valdez, Live Oak, CA
Mr. Valdez would like to see the Yuba-Sutter Commuter route 699 provide drop off at the Sam’s Club stop prior to 9 AM. He also said he would like the Commuter buses to better connect/coordinate with the Sacramento Regional Transit route 30 on J Street, specifically arriving in Sacramento before 9 AM to allow someone to catch the RT route 30. Mr. Valdez would also like the southbound Live Oak route to always serve Yuba College rather than only serving that location by reservation. He also notices some of the side mirrors on the buses facing the wrong way, which may prevent drivers from seeing passengers alongside the bus and cause a safety issue.
Keith Martin responded that if a rider has a safety concern to contact Yuba-Sutter Transit immediately so that they can deal with the issue.
Page 1 of 2 Attachment H
4. Ronald Camp, Marysville, CA
Mr. Camp had multiple comments regarding the Yuba-Sutter Transit routes 4A and 4B and their interconnectivity with route 1:
a. Mr. Camp stated he is very glad the Yuba-Sutter Transit system exists. b. There is a bottleneck on the routes 4A and 4B (Government Center) and route 1 going over the bridge into Marysville and returning from Yuba City. These bottlenecks frequently cause riders to miss a connections needed to arrive at work or school on- time. c. Route 1 going from Yuba City to Yuba College is usually on time, but the reverse trip is frequently late and packed with riders. d. Add a stop on the route 4A before the bridge on B Street and one at the High School. e. Some Yuba-Sutter Transit drivers are not consistent in application of rules. f. The number 4 routes have only hourly service. The 4B direction are usually on-time, but the 4A direction are consistently 20-25 minutes late. g. To save time eliminate the loop at the One-Stop in Marysville on the routes 4A/B. The 4A would turn right off Ramirez onto 12 th Street and continue to B Street, and the 4B would come from B Street (on 12 th Street) and turn left onto Ramirez. This change would remove two stops (apt. building on Simpson and One Stop on Yuba St.) but would require a minimal increase in walking for riders. The time saved could be used to lengthen the window for the 4A and 4B at the Government Center Transfer Point.
CORRESPONDENCE
1. Maricella Lemus, Marysville, CA
Ms. Lemus works at the Cache Creek Resort and Casino in Yolo County, CA. currently working a 12 PM to 8 PM shift. She can arrive to work via transit, though the trip frequently takes her 3 hours or more. Ms. Lemus cannot get home via transit as there is not service from Yolo County or downtown Sacramento to Marysville that late in the evening, so she must rely on rides from coworkers who also live in the Marysville/Yuba City area. Anecdotally, Ms. Lemus mentioned that a large number of her coworkers live in the Marysville/Yuba City area due to significantly lower housing costs.
Page 2 of 2 Attachment I
TRANSIT NEEDS PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SACOG BOARD – REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY AREA MINUTES
January 18, 2018 – 9:30 A.M.
The hearing was conducted by the SACOG Board of Directors and Barbara VaughanBechtold staff at SACOG.
Ms. VaughanBechtold provided a brief overview of SACOG’s responsibilities under the State of California Transportation Development Act and the corresponding unmet transit needs hearing process. Four people testified at the hearing; and 1 item of correspondence was received. All Unmet Transit Needs comments are listed below.
SACOG Board Chair Jay Schenirer opened the hearing to public comment.
Director Cabaldon clarified after the hearing that the Unmet Transit Needs Process is very narrow in scope. The Process only affect one type of Transportation Development Act funds, Local Transportation Funds (LTF), and only in those places where all those funds are not already used for transit purposes. He also stated that SACOG cannot in general tell transit agencies how to provide their transit services, make operational improvements, of shift LTF funds between counties.
Director Banks requested that in the future, when possible, the approximate cost of the transit services or operational improvements being requested be listed.
Director Hansen and Chair Schenirer, who also service on the Sacramento RT Board, offered to speak with any Board members interested in what RT has been doing to improve the agency.
Director Saylor state that he finds the Unmet Transit Needs Process valuable to get information at the local level on rider interest and needs.
SACOG CEO Corless stated that he understood some of the frustration of the Unmet Transit Needs commenters and the Board members regarding this sometimes frustrating and very limited process with a grand sounding name. He stated that some of those frustrations may be helped with the SACOG Next Generation Transit Initiative and the outreach planned for that effort.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY
1. Jeffery Tardaguila, Sacramento, CA
Mr. Tardaguila stated that he would like to see more transparency to show how transit agencies like the Sacramento Regional Transit District (SRTD) spend their funds. He would like to know how a loan from SACOG was being used by SRTD. Mr. Tardaquila is a member of DOGFITE (Disability Organizing Group For Initiating Total Equality) and group that advocates throughout the region and at the state level from improved healthcare, affordable accessible housing, affordable accessible transportation, and social services. The Group promotes individual rights, liberty, and equality to protect the rights and interests of all seniors and persons with disabilities; and supports immigration rights and social justice so no community is left behind.
Sacramento Area Council of Governments 1 Attachment I
2. Helen O’Connell, Sacramento, CA
Ms. O’Connell came representing the advocacy group DOGFITE (Disability Organizing Group For Initiating Total Equality). She commented on the unreliable elevator at the Watt/I-80 bus and light rail station. She stated that approximately 250 persons with disabilities use that transit stop daily, and need the elevator there to connect to bus and light rail on the lower level of the station. Ms. O’Connell said that the unreliable and frequently inoperable elevator at the station and the RT bus bridge put in place to bring persons with disabilities down to the lower level was insufficient and made access to RT and other regional transit services at the station more difficult for person with disabilities. She encourages the SACOG Board to consider finding the Watt/I-80 elevator inoperability an unmet transit need.
3. Richard Lentz, Fair Oaks, CA
Mr. Lentz is a resident of Fair Oaks a community located in the unincorporated area of the County of Sacramento. He attended the hearing as a representative of 350 Sacramento that was formed in 2010. The 350 volunteer organization works to make Sacramento a leader in reducing greenhouse gases and spreads awareness of person and institutional changes that can be made to preserve the environment. Mr. Lentz stated that a large part of reducing greenhouse gases is the need to reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). He stated that a large part of reducing VMT would come from having multiple reliable public transit options. He encourage the Board to make sure that RT had adequate funding to not only maintain current service levels, but to support the agency’s long term plans to improve and expand their transit services. Mr. Lentz said that 350 Sacramento would be working over the next year to support any ballot measures that increase funding for transit, as well as educate and raise awareness for the need for additional transit funding.
Chair Schenirer responded that RT would be doing a large amount of outreach on the Route Optimization Study in the near future.
4. Sarah Kerber, Sacramento, CA
Ms. Kerber attended the hearing as a representative of the Sacramento Transit Riders Union (SacTRU). She reiterated a comment made in a letter submitted to the SACOG Unmet Transit Needs Process dated December 13, 2017. The comment was regarding the need to replace the elevators at the Watt/I-80 station as they are frequently broken. She stated that the Watt/I-80 station sees 3,500 riders per day and 250 of those riders are wheelchair users. There is a shuttle bus in place when the elevators are broken, but this increases travel times for those who must use the shuttle to access the bus and light rail services on the lower level of the Watt/I-80 station. Ms. Kerber said that it appears that replacing the elevators would be a better option that moving all transit services down to the lower level as that would increase travel times for all users of the Watt/I-80 station.
CORRESPONDENCE
1. Lynne Goldsmith, Sacramento, CA
Ms. Goldsmith submitted multiple comments via email regarding the Sacramento Regional Transit District:
Sacramento Area Council of Governments 2 Attachment I
Sacramento Area Council of Governments 3
SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION NO. X – 2018
FINDING THAT THERE ARE UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS AS PART OF THE SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT DISTRICT
WHEREAS , the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Unmet Transit Needs Process and Definitions adopted on August 20, 2015; and
WHEREAS , “unmet transit needs” are defined as “existing transit services or service variants, including services where transfers may be necessary to complete a trip, that are not adequately meeting the identified transportation needs of residents of the SACOG four-county Regional Transportation Planning Area (Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties) who are likely to use public transportation. This includes, but is not limited to: trips for education and training (excluding exclusive school bus transportation), employment, healthcare services, personal business, recreation, and social services”; those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS), and that have not been implemented or funded; and
WHEREAS , unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, cost effectiveness, funding and feasibility; and
WHEREAS , the City of Citrus Heights identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and
WHEREAS , public hearings on transit needs were held by SACOG for Sacramento County at the Sacramento Regional Transit District Auditorium on October 23, 2017, at the Galt City Council Chambers on October 26, 2017, at the Folsom Chamber of Commerce on October 30, 2017, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 18, 2018; and
WHEREAS , transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and
Resolution No. X– 2018 -2- February 15, 2018
WHEREAS , the Sacramento County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that:
There are unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Citrus Heights as part of the Sacramento Regional Transit District.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 15th day of February 2018, by the following vote of the Board of Directors:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
______Jay Schenirer James Corless Chair Chief Executive Officer
SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION NO. X – 2018
FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE CITY OF DAVIS
WHEREAS , the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Unmet Transit Needs Process and Definitions adopted on August 20, 2015; and
WHEREAS , “unmet transit needs” are defined as “existing transit services or service variants, including services where transfers may be necessary to complete a trip, that are not adequately meeting the identified transportation needs of residents of the SACOG four-county Regional Transportation Planning Area (Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties) who are likely to use public transportation. This includes, but is not limited to: trips for education and training (excluding exclusive school bus transportation), employment, healthcare services, personal business, recreation, and social services”; those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS), and that have not been implemented or funded; and
WHEREAS , unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, cost effectiveness, funding and feasibility; and
WHEREAS , the City of Davis identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and
WHEREAS , public hearings on transit needs were held by SACOG for Yolo County at the City of Davis Council Chambers on November 6, 2017, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 18, 2018; and
WHEREAS , transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and
WHEREAS , the Yolo County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation. Resolution No. X– 2018 -2- February 15, 2018
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that:
There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Davis.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 15th day of February 2018, by the following vote of the Board of Directors:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
______Jay Schenirer James Corless Chair Chief Executive Officer
SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION NO. X – 2018
FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE CITY OF ELK GROVE
WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Unmet Transit Needs Process and Definitions adopted on August 20, 2015; and
WHEREAS, “unmet transit needs” are defined as “existing transit services or service variants, including services where transfers may be necessary to complete a trip, that are not adequately meeting the identified transportation needs of residents of the SACOG four-county Regional Transportation Planning Area (Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties) who are likely to use public transportation. This includes, but is not limited to: trips for education and training (excluding exclusive school bus transportation), employment, healthcare services, personal business, recreation, and social services”; those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS), and that have not been implemented or funded; and
WHEREAS, unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, cost effectiveness, funding and feasibility; and
WHEREAS, the City of Elk Grove identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and
WHEREAS, public hearings on transit needs were held by SACOG for Sacramento County at the Sacramento Regional Transit District Auditorium on October 23, 2017, at the Galt City Council Chambers on October 26, 2017, at the Folsom Chamber of Commerce on October 30, 2017, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 18, 2018; and
WHEREAS, transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and
Resolution No. X– 2018 -2- February 15, 2018
WHEREAS, the Sacramento County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that:
There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Elk Grove.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 15th day of February 2018, by the following vote of the Board of Directors:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
______Jay Schenirer James Corless Chair Chief Executive Officer
SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION NO. X – 2018
FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE CITY OF FOLSOM
WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Unmet Transit Needs Process and Definitions adopted on August 20, 2015; and
WHEREAS, “unmet transit needs” are defined as “existing transit services or service variants, including services where transfers may be necessary to complete a trip, that are not adequately meeting the identified transportation needs of residents of the SACOG four-county Regional Transportation Planning Area (Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties) who are likely to use public transportation. This includes, but is not limited to: trips for education and training (excluding exclusive school bus transportation), employment, healthcare services, personal business, recreation, and social services”; those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS), and that have not been implemented or funded; and
WHEREAS, unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, cost effectiveness, funding and feasibility; and
WHEREAS, the City of Folsom identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and
WHEREAS, public hearings on transit needs were held by SACOG for Sacramento County at the Sacramento Regional Transit District Auditorium on October 23, 2017, at the Galt City Council Chambers on October 26, 2017, at the Folsom Chamber of Commerce on October 30, 2017, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 18, 2018; and
WHEREAS, transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and
Resolution No. X– 2018 -2- February 15, 2018
WHEREAS, the Sacramento County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that:
There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Folsom.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 15th day of February 2018, by the following vote of the Board of Directors:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
______Jay Schenirer James Corless Chair Chief Executive Officer
SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION NO. X – 2018
FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE CITY OF GALT
WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Unmet Transit Needs Process and Definitions adopted on August 20, 2015; and
WHEREAS, “unmet transit needs” are defined as “existing transit services or service variants, including services where transfers may be necessary to complete a trip, that are not adequately meeting the identified transportation needs of residents of the SACOG four-county Regional Transportation Planning Area (Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties) who are likely to use public transportation. This includes, but is not limited to: trips for education and training (excluding exclusive school bus transportation), employment, healthcare services, personal business, recreation, and social services”; those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS), and that have not been implemented or funded; and
WHEREAS, unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, cost effectiveness, funding and feasibility; and
WHEREAS, the City of Galt identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and
WHEREAS, public hearings on transit needs were held by SACOG for Sacramento County at the Sacramento Regional Transit District Auditorium on October 23, 2017, at the Galt City Council Chambers on October 26, 2017, at the Folsom Chamber of Commerce on October 30, 2017, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 18, 2018; and
WHEREAS, transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and
Resolution No. X– 2018 -2- February 15, 2018
WHEREAS, the Sacramento County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that:
There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Galt.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 15th day of February 2018, by the following vote of the Board of Directors:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
______Jay Schenirer James Corless Chair Chief Executive Officer
SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION NO. X – 2018
FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE CITY OF LIVE OAK
WHEREAS , the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Unmet Transit Needs Process and Definitions adopted on August 20, 2015; and
WHEREAS , “unmet transit needs” are defined as “existing transit services or service variants, including services where transfers may be necessary to complete a trip, that are not adequately meeting the identified transportation needs of residents of the SACOG four-county Regional Transportation Planning Area (Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties) who are likely to use public transportation. This includes, but is not limited to: trips for education and training (excluding exclusive school bus transportation), employment, healthcare services, personal business, recreation, and social services”; those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS), and that have not been implemented or funded; and
WHEREAS , unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, cost effectiveness, funding and feasibility; and
WHEREAS , the City of Live Oak identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and
WHEREAS , public hearings on transit needs were held by SACOG for Yuba and Sutter Counties at the Yuba County Government Center (Marysville) on October 11, 2017, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 18, 2018; and
WHEREAS , transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and
WHEREAS , the Joint Sutter-Yuba County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation. Resolution No. X– 2018 -2- February 15, 2018
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that:
There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Live Oak.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 15th day of February 2018, by the following vote of the Board of Directors:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
______Jay Schenirer James Corless Chair Chief Executive Officer
SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION NO. X – 2018
FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS IN THE CITY OF ISLETON
WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Unmet Transit Needs Process and Definitions adopted on August 20, 2015; and
WHEREAS, “unmet transit needs” are defined as “existing transit services or service variants, including services where transfers may be necessary to complete a trip, that are not adequately meeting the identified transportation needs of residents of the SACOG four-county Regional Transportation Planning Area (Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties) who are likely to use public transportation. This includes, but is not limited to: trips for education and training (excluding exclusive school bus transportation), employment, healthcare services, personal business, recreation, and social services”; those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS), and that have not been implemented or funded; and
WHEREAS, unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, cost effectiveness, funding and feasibility; and
WHEREAS, the City of Isleton identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and
WHEREAS, public hearings on transit needs were held by SACOG for Sacramento County at the Sacramento Regional Transit District Auditorium on October 23, 2017, at the Galt City Council Chambers on October 26, 2017, at the Folsom Chamber of Commerce on October 30, 2017, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 18, 2018; and
WHEREAS, transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and
WHEREAS, the Sacramento County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation.
Resolution No. X– 2018 -2- February 15, 2018
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that:
There are no unmet transit needs in the City of Isleton.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 15th day of February 2018, by the following vote of the Board of Directors:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
______Jay Schenirer James Corless Chair Chief Executive Officer
SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION NO. X – 2018
FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE CITY OF MARYSVILLE
WHEREAS , the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Unmet Transit Needs Process and Definitions adopted on August 20, 2015; and
WHEREAS , “unmet transit needs” are defined as “existing transit services or service variants, including services where transfers may be necessary to complete a trip, that are not adequately meeting the identified transportation needs of residents of the SACOG four-county Regional Transportation Planning Area (Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties) who are likely to use public transportation. This includes, but is not limited to: trips for education and training (excluding exclusive school bus transportation), employment, healthcare services, personal business, recreation, and social services”; those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS), and that have not been implemented or funded; and
WHEREAS , unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, cost effectiveness, funding and feasibility; and
WHEREAS , the City of Marysville identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and
WHEREAS , public hearings on transit needs were held by SACOG for Yuba and Sutter Counties at the Yuba County Government Center (Marysville) on October 11, 2017, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 18, 2018; and
WHEREAS , transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and
WHEREAS , the Joint Sutter-Yuba County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation. Resolution No. X– 2018 -2- February 15, 2018
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that:
There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Marysville.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 15th day of February 2018, by the following vote of the Board of Directors:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
______Jay Schenirer James Corless Chair Chief Executive Officer
SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION NO. X – 2018
FINDING THAT THERE ARE UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA AS PART OF THE SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Unmet Transit Needs Process and Definitions adopted on August 20, 2015; and
WHEREAS, “unmet transit needs” are defined as “existing transit services or service variants, including services where transfers may be necessary to complete a trip, that are not adequately meeting the identified transportation needs of residents of the SACOG four-county Regional Transportation Planning Area (Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties) who are likely to use public transportation. This includes, but is not limited to: trips for education and training (excluding exclusive school bus transportation), employment, healthcare services, personal business, recreation, and social services”; those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS), and that have not been implemented or funded; and
WHEREAS, unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, cost effectiveness, funding and feasibility; and
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cordova identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and
WHEREAS, public hearings on transit needs were held by SACOG for Sacramento County at the Sacramento Regional Transit District Auditorium on October 23, 2017, at the Galt City Council Chambers on October 26, 2017, at the Folsom Chamber of Commerce on October 30, 2017, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 18, 2018; and
WHEREAS, transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and
WHEREAS, the Sacramento County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council Resolution No. X– 2018 -2- February 15, 2018
participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that:
There are unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Rancho Cordova as part of the Sacramento Regional Transit District.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 15th day of February 2018, by the following vote of the Board of Directors:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
______Jay Schenirer James Corless Chair Chief Executive Officer
SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION NO. X – 2018
FINDING THAT THERE ARE UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Unmet Transit Needs Process and Definitions adopted on August 20, 2015; and
WHEREAS, “unmet transit needs” are defined as “existing transit services or service variants, including services where transfers may be necessary to complete a trip, that are not adequately meeting the identified transportation needs of residents of the SACOG four-county Regional Transportation Planning Area (Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties) who are likely to use public transportation. This includes, but is not limited to: trips for education and training (excluding exclusive school bus transportation), employment, healthcare services, personal business, recreation, and social services”; those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS), and that have not been implemented or funded; and
WHEREAS, unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, cost effectiveness, funding and feasibility; and
WHEREAS, the Sacramento Regional Transit District identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and
WHEREAS, public hearings on transit needs were held by SACOG for Sacramento County at the Sacramento Regional Transit District Auditorium on October 23, 2017, at the Galt City Council Chambers on October 26, 2017, at the Folsom Chamber of Commerce on October 30, 2017, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 18, 2018; and
WHEREAS, transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and
WHEREAS, the Sacramento County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council Resolution No. X– 2018 -2- February 15, 2018
participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that:
There are unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the Sacramento Regional Transit District, including the cities of Citrus Heights and Rancho Cordova, as well as portions of Unincorporated Sacramento County within the SRTD.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 15th day of February 2018, by the following vote of the Board of Directors:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
______Jay Schenirer James Corless Chair Chief Executive Officer
SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION NO. X – 2018
FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY OUTSIDE OF THE SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Unmet Transit Needs Process and Definitions adopted on August 20, 2015; and
WHEREAS, “unmet transit needs” are defined as “existing transit services or service variants, including services where transfers may be necessary to complete a trip, that are not adequately meeting the identified transportation needs of residents of the SACOG four-county Regional Transportation Planning Area (Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties) who are likely to use public transportation. This includes, but is not limited to: trips for education and training (excluding exclusive school bus transportation), employment, healthcare services, personal business, recreation, and social services”; those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS), and that have not been implemented or funded; and
WHEREAS, unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, cost effectiveness, funding and feasibility; and
WHEREAS, the County of Sacramento identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and
WHEREAS, public hearings on transit needs were held by SACOG for Sacramento County at the Sacramento Regional Transit District Auditorium on October 23, 2017, at the Galt City Council Chambers on October 26, 2017, at the Folsom Chamber of Commerce on October 30, 2017, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 18, 2018; and
WHEREAS, transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and
WHEREAS, the Sacramento County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council Resolution No. X– 2018 -2- February 15, 2018
participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that:
There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the Unincorporated Areas of the County of Sacramento outside of the Sacramento Regional Transit District.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 15th day of February 2018, by the following vote of the Board of Directors:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
______Jay Schenirer James Corless Chair Chief Executive Officer
SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION NO. X – 2018
FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE UNICORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY OF SUTTER
WHEREAS , the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Unmet Transit Needs Process and Definitions adopted on August 20, 2015; and
WHEREAS , “unmet transit needs” are defined as “existing transit services or service variants, including services where transfers may be necessary to complete a trip, that are not adequately meeting the identified transportation needs of residents of the SACOG four-county Regional Transportation Planning Area (Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties) who are likely to use public transportation. This includes, but is not limited to: trips for education and training (excluding exclusive school bus transportation), employment, healthcare services, personal business, recreation, and social services”; those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS), and that have not been implemented or funded; and
WHEREAS , unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, cost effectiveness, funding and feasibility; and
WHEREAS , the County of Sutter identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and
WHEREAS , public hearings on transit needs were held by SACOG for Yuba and Sutter Counties at the Yuba County Government Center (Marysville) on October 11, 2017, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 18, 2018; and
WHEREAS , transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and
WHEREAS , the Joint Sutter-Yuba County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation.
Resolution No. X– 2018 -2- February 15, 2018
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that:
There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the Unincorporated area of the County of Sutter.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 15th day of February 2018, by the following vote of the Board of Directors:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
______Jay Schenirer James Corless Chair Chief Executive Officer
SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION NO. X– 2018
FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF YOLO COUNTY
WHEREAS , the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Unmet Transit Needs Process and Definitions adopted on August 20, 2015; and
WHEREAS , “unmet transit needs” are defined as “existing transit services or service variants, including services where transfers may be necessary to complete a trip, that are not adequately meeting the identified transportation needs of residents of the SACOG four-county Regional Transportation Planning Area (Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties) who are likely to use public transportation. This includes, but is not limited to: trips for education and training (excluding exclusive school bus transportation), employment, healthcare services, personal business, recreation, and social services”; those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS), and that have not been implemented or funded; and
WHEREAS , unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, cost effectiveness, funding and feasibility; and
WHEREAS , the County of Yolo identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and
WHEREAS , public hearings on transit needs were held by SACOG for Yolo County at Davis City Council Chambers on November 6, 2017, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 18, 2018; and
WHEREAS , transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and
WHEREAS , the Yolo County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation. Resolution No. X– 2018 -2- February 15, 2018
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that:
There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the Unincorporated Areas of the County of Yolo.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 15th day of February 2018, by the following vote of the Board of Directors:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
______Jay Schenirer James Corless Chair Chief Executive Officer
SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION NO. X – 2018
FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE UNICORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY OF YUBA
WHEREAS , the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Unmet Transit Needs Process and Definitions adopted on August 20, 2015; and
WHEREAS , “unmet transit needs” are defined as “existing transit services or service variants, including services where transfers may be necessary to complete a trip, that are not adequately meeting the identified transportation needs of residents of the SACOG four-county Regional Transportation Planning Area (Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties) who are likely to use public transportation. This includes, but is not limited to: trips for education and training (excluding exclusive school bus transportation), employment, healthcare services, personal business, recreation, and social services”; those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS), and that have not been implemented or funded; and
WHEREAS , unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, cost effectiveness, funding and feasibility; and
WHEREAS , the County of Yuba identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and
WHEREAS , public hearings on transit needs were held by SACOG for Yuba and Sutter Counties at the Yuba County Government Center (Marysville) on October 11, 2017, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 18, 2018; and
WHEREAS , transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and
WHEREAS , the Joint Sutter-Yuba County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation.
Resolution No. X– 2018 -2- February 15, 2018
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that:
There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the Unincorporated Areas of the County of Yuba.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 15th day of February 2018, by the following vote of the Board of Directors:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
______Jay Schenirer James Corless Chair Chief Executive Officer
SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION NO. X – 2018
FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO
WHEREAS , the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Unmet Transit Needs Process and Definitions adopted on August 20, 2015; and
WHEREAS , “unmet transit needs” are defined as “existing transit services or service variants, including services where transfers may be necessary to complete a trip, that are not adequately meeting the identified transportation needs of residents of the SACOG four-county Regional Transportation Planning Area (Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties) who are likely to use public transportation. This includes, but is not limited to: trips for education and training (excluding exclusive school bus transportation), employment, healthcare services, personal business, recreation, and social services”; those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS), and that have not been implemented or funded; and
WHEREAS , unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, cost effectiveness, funding and feasibility; and
WHEREAS , the City of West Sacramento identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and
WHEREAS , public hearings on transit needs were held by SACOG for Yolo County at Davis City Council Chambers on November 6, 2017, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 18, 2018; and
WHEREAS , transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and
WHEREAS , the Yolo County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation. Resolution No. X– 2018 -2- February 15, 2018
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that:
There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of West Sacramento.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 15th day of February 2018, by the following vote of the Board of Directors:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
______Jay Schenirer James Corless Chair Chief Executive Officer
SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION NO. X – 2018
FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS IN THE CITY OF WHEATLAND
WHEREAS , the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Unmet Transit Needs Process and Definitions adopted on August 20, 2015; and
WHEREAS , “unmet transit needs” are defined as “existing transit services or service variants, including services where transfers may be necessary to complete a trip, that are not adequately meeting the identified transportation needs of residents of the SACOG four-county Regional Transportation Planning Area (Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties) who are likely to use public transportation. This includes, but is not limited to: trips for education and training (excluding exclusive school bus transportation), employment, healthcare services, personal business, recreation, and social services”; those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS), and that have not been implemented or funded; and
WHEREAS , unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, cost effectiveness, funding and feasibility; and
WHEREAS , the City of Wheatland identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and
WHEREAS , public hearings on transit needs were held by SACOG for Yuba and Sutter Counties at the Yuba County Government Center (Marysville) on October 11, 2017, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 18, 2018; and
WHEREAS , transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and
WHEREAS , the Joint Sutter-Yuba County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation. Resolution No. X– 2018 -2- February 15, 2018
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that:
There are no unmet transit needs in the City of Wheatland.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 15th day of February 2018, by the following vote of the Board of Directors:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
______Jay Schenirer James Corless Chair Chief Executive Officer
SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION NO. X – 2018
FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS IN THE CITY OF WINTERS
WHEREAS , the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Unmet Transit Needs Process and Definitions adopted on August 20, 2015; and
WHEREAS , “unmet transit needs” are defined as “existing transit services or service variants, including services where transfers may be necessary to complete a trip, that are not adequately meeting the identified transportation needs of residents of the SACOG four-county Regional Transportation Planning Area (Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties) who are likely to use public transportation. This includes, but is not limited to: trips for education and training (excluding exclusive school bus transportation), employment, healthcare services, personal business, recreation, and social services”; those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS), and that have not been implemented or funded; and
WHEREAS , unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, cost effectiveness, funding and feasibility; and
WHEREAS , the City of Winters identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and
WHEREAS , public hearings on transit needs were held by SACOG for Yolo County at Davis City Council Chambers on November 6, 2017, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 18, 2018; and
WHEREAS , transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and
WHEREAS , the Yolo County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation. Resolution No. X– 2018 -2- February 15, 2018
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that:
There are no unmet transit needs in the City of Winters.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 15th day of February 2018, by the following vote of the Board of Directors:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
______Jay Schenirer James Corless Chair Chief Executive Officer
SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION NO. X – 2018
FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE CITY OF WOODLAND
WHEREAS , the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Unmet Transit Needs Process and Definitions adopted on August 20, 2015; and
WHEREAS , “unmet transit needs” are defined as “existing transit services or service variants, including services where transfers may be necessary to complete a trip, that are not adequately meeting the identified transportation needs of residents of the SACOG four-county Regional Transportation Planning Area (Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties) who are likely to use public transportation. This includes, but is not limited to: trips for education and training (excluding exclusive school bus transportation), employment, healthcare services, personal business, recreation, and social services”; those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS), and that have not been implemented or funded; and
WHEREAS , unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, cost effectiveness, funding and feasibility; and
WHEREAS , the City of Woodland identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and
WHEREAS , public hearings on transit needs were held by SACOG for Yolo County at Davis City Council Chambers on November 6, 2017, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 18, 2018; and
WHEREAS , transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and
WHEREAS , the Yolo County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation. Resolution No. X– 2018 -2- February 15, 2018
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that:
There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Woodland.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 15th day of February 2018, by the following vote of the Board of Directors:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
______Jay Schenirer James Corless Chair Chief Executive Officer
SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION NO. X– 2018
FINDING THAT THERE ARE NO UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS THAT ARE REASONABLE TO MEET IN THE CITY OF YUBA CITY
WHEREAS , the Sacramento Area Council of Governments has defined “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” in its Unmet Transit Needs Process and Definitions adopted on August 20, 2015; and
WHEREAS , “unmet transit needs” are defined as “existing transit services or service variants, including services where transfers may be necessary to complete a trip, that are not adequately meeting the identified transportation needs of residents of the SACOG four-county Regional Transportation Planning Area (Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba counties) who are likely to use public transportation. This includes, but is not limited to: trips for education and training (excluding exclusive school bus transportation), employment, healthcare services, personal business, recreation, and social services”; those needs identified as unmet transit needs and have been considered as part of the transportation planning process; i.e., in Short Range Transit Plans, special transit studies, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Complementary Paratransit Service Plans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS), and that have not been implemented or funded; and
WHEREAS , unmet transit needs that are “reasonable to meet” are defined as meeting the definition above and all of the following criteria: community acceptance, equity, potential ridership, cost effectiveness, funding and feasibility; and
WHEREAS , the City of Yuba City identified transit needs considered in its transportation planning process; and
WHEREAS , public hearings on transit needs were held by SACOG for Yuba and Sutter Counties at the Yuba County Government Center (Marysville) on October 11, 2017, and before the SACOG Board of Directors on January 18, 2018; and
WHEREAS , transit needs considered in the transportation planning process and identified from the public hearing testimony have been analyzed to determine whether they are reasonable to meet using the SACOG adopted criteria, as detailed in the attached staff report; and
WHEREAS , the Joint Sutter-Yuba County Social Service Transportation Advisory Council participated in the identification of transit needs and concurs with the staff analysis and recommendation. Resolution No. X– 2018 -2- February 15, 2018
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors finds that:
There are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in the City of Yuba City.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 15th day of February 2018, by the following vote of the Board of Directors:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
______Jay Schenirer James Corless Chair Chief Executive Officer
Transportation Committee Meeting Date: 02/01/18 Agenda Item No.: 2018-February-7
Subject: FY 2018/19 Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants
Action Consent Information R&F Report Workshop Prepared by: Sharon Sprowls Approved by: Matt Carpenter Attachments: Y N
1. Issue: Should the Board authorize SACOG to submit applications to Caltrans for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018/19 Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program?
2. Recommendation: That the Transportation Committee recommend that the Board: (1) approve a resolution (Attachment C) to be submitted to Caltrans with SACOG applications for discretionary funding; and (2) authorize the Chief Executive Officer to execute funding agreements associated with these grant applications if awarded funding by Caltrans.
3. Background: Over many years Caltrans has administered a discretionary transportation planning grant program. In January 2018, Caltrans issued guidelines for the next round of Sustainable Transportation Planning grants. Applications are due February 23, 2018. The FY 2018/19 program consists of a Sustainable Communities competitive grant program and Sustainable Communities Formula Funding grant program for MPOs, using state SB 1 funds; and two Strategic Partnership grant programs using federal funds – one for planning studies that address the needs of the State highway system, and one for multimodal planning studies with a focus on transit. Attachment A provides a summary of the four programs.
4. Discussion/Analysis: As has been our custom, SACOG staff sent notifications to member agency planners and public works staff, and SACOG’s Regional Planning Partnership, Transit Coordinating Committee, and Transportation Demand Management Task Force, informing them of the FY 2018/19 guidelines. Each year, SACOG staff offers technical assistance on applications to agencies who seek it. This year, applications for Strategic Partnership grants may only be submitted by a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) or Regional Transportation Agency (RTPA). Staff therefore provided guidance and deadlines for agencies wishing to submit an application through SACOG.
SACOG has also discussed with various agency partners submitting joint grant applications for the FY 2018/19 grant programs. Attachment B provides a list of potential grant applications that SACOG may wish to move forward, including brief summaries of each of the proposed projects. We will provide a more refined list as needed to the Committee for its February 1, 2018, meeting, and to the Board for its February 15, 2018, meeting. In the Transportation Committee Page | 2
meantime, staff is seeking a Committee recommendation for SACOG to continue moving ahead with these applications.
5. Fiscal Impact/Grant Information: No fiscal impact to SACOG at this time.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Summary Attachment B - Potential Applications Attachment C - Caltrans Grants Resolution
Attachment A
Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Summary Chart
GRANT FUND SOURCE PURPOSE WHO MAY APPLY LOCAL MATCH
The following are eligible to apply as a primary applicant: • MPOs with sub-applicants Funds local and • regional RTPAs Budget multimodal • Transit Agencies; RMRA and transportation • Cities and Counties; and land use SHA • 11.47 percent planning projects Native American Tribal minimum (in cash or State funds that further the Governments an in-kind* Approx. $17 region’s RTP • Other Public Transportation contribution). The million SCS (where Planning Entities Sustainable entire minimum 11.47 applicable), Communities Grant Min. The following are eligible to apply as percent local match contribute to the Competitive $50,000 for a sub-applicant: may be in the form of State’s GHG Disadvantaged an eligible in-kind reduction targets, • MPOs/RTPAs Communities; contribution. Staff and also assist in • $100,000 for Transit Agencies time from the primary achieving the All Others • Universities and Community applicant counts as Caltrans Mission Colleges cash match. Grant Max. and Grant • Native American Tribal $1,000,000 Program Overarching Governments Objectives (See • Cities and Counties Page 4). • Community-Based Organizations • Non-Profit Organizations (501.C.3) • Other Public Entities** Funds local and regional multimodal transportation and land use 11.47 percent planning projects minimum (in cash or that further the an in-kind* region’s RTP contribution). The Budget SCS (where The following are eligible to apply as entire minimum 11.47 Sustainable RMRA applicable), a primary applicant: percent local match Communities contribute to the State funds may be in the form of Formula State’s GHG $12.5 million • MPOs an eligible in-kind reduction targets, contribution. Staff and also assist in time from the primary achieving the applicant counts as Caltrans Mission cash match. and Grant Program Overarching Objectives (See Page 4).
* For in-kind contribution requirements, refer to Page 23 of this Guide. ** Public entities include state agencies, the Regents of the University of California, district, public authority, public agency, and any other political subdivision or public corporation in the State (Government Code Section 811.2).
January 2018 1 Attachment A
Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Summary Chart
GRANT FUND SOURCE PURPOSE WHO MAY APPLY LOCAL MATCH
Funds transportation planning studies in partnership 20 percent minimum Budget with Caltrans (in non-federal funds FHWA that address the or an in-kind* SPR, Part I regional, contribution). The Federal funds interregional and entire minimum 20 statewide needs percent local match Strategic $1.5 million of the State may be in the form Partnerships Grant Min. highway system, The following are eligible to apply of an eligible in-kind $100,000 and also assist as a primary applicant: contribution. Staff in achieving the time from the • MPOs Grant Max. Caltrans Mission primary applicant $500,000 and Grant • RTPAs counts as cash Program match. The following are eligible to apply Overarching as a sub-applicant: Objectives (See Page 4). • MPOs/RTPAs • Transit Agencies • Universities and Community Colleges Funds • Native American Tribal multimodal Governments planning studies • Cities and Counties 11.47 percent with a focus on minimum (in non- transit, in • Community-Based Organizations Budget federal funds or an partnership with FTA Section 5304 • Non-Profit Organizations in-kind* Caltrans, of (501.C.3) contribution). The Federal funds regional, entire minimum Strategic $2.8 million interregional and • Other Public Entities** 11.47 percent local Partnerships statewide match may be in the – Transit Grant Min. significance, and form of an eligible $100,000 also assist in in-kind contribution. achieving the Staff time from the Grant Max. Caltrans Mission primary applicant $500,000 and Grant counts as cash Program match. Overarching Objectives (See Page 4).
* For in-kind contribution requirements, refer to Page 23 of this Guide. ** Public entities include state agencies, the Regents of the University of California, district, public authority, public agency, and any other political subdivision or public corporation in the State (Government Code Section 811.2).
January 2018 2 Attachment B
Partners/Potential Project Focus Partners Planning Technical Building on positive experience with technical Portland State University, Assistance for Rural assistance program provided by Portland State interested rural Communities University (PSU) through Strategic Growth Council communities in region grant funding, seek funds to continue technical assistance by PSU for small rural communities to help plan transportation improvements that support mobility, active transportation, trip reduction, and economic development/prosperity.
Regional Trails and Building on work across the region to develop trails, PCTPA, EDCTC, Park/Trail Connections including Dry Creek Trail, Epic Trail, etc., work with individual jurisdictions Plan jurisdictions to dentify and prioritize segments to create a connected regional trail system, considering economic value for region, agritourism, rural economic development, benefits/costs, etc., and connectivity improvements to reach regional trails and parks, especially from disadvantaged communities.
Page 1 of 1 Attachment C
SACRAMENTO AREA COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
RESOLUTION NO. X – 2018
APPROVING CALTRANS SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018-19 AND AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO EXECUTE THE FUNDING AGREEMENTS FOR AWARDED GRANTS
WHEREAS, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) is the Metropolitan Planning Organization and one of the Regional Transportation Planning Agencies responsible for transportation planning in the Sacramento region; and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is offering an opportunity for SACOG and sub-applicants through SACOG to apply for a FY 2018-19 cycle of Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants; and
WHEREAS, approval is requested for grant applications to be submitted by February 23, 2018, and for the Chief Executive Officer to execute funding agreements between SACOG and the California Department of Transportation;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the SACOG Board of Directors authorizes the Chief Executive Officer to submit Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant applications for FY 2018-19, and authorizes the Chief Executive Officer to execute any grant agreements necessary to receive grant funds, or other funds that may be available, for the purpose of developing and implementing the grant application projects in the Sacramento Region.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 15th day of February 2018, by the following vote of the Board of Directors:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Jay Schenirer James Corless Chair Chief Executive Officer
Transportation Committee Meeting Date: 02/01/18 Agenda Item No.: 2018-February-8
Subject: 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy: Update and Look Ahead
Action Consent Information R&F Report Workshop Prepared by: Clint Holtzen Approved by: Matt Carpenter Attachments: Y N
1. Issue: Staff will provide a status update and look at what is coming up for the development of the 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020 MTP/SCS).
2. Recommendation: None. This item is for information and discussion only.
3. Background: The Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) is the long-range transportation planning document for the six-county SACOG region. SACOG is required under federal and state law to maintain the plan and update it at least every four years. The MTP/SCS must cover a minimum 20-year planning period and guide transportation investments based on a reasonable forecast of population, housing, employment, and transportation revenue.
In late 2017, the Board explored a range of policy issues that could be central to this plan update including a changing economy, new technologies, housing and jobs to support a growing population, an increasing focus on performance-based planning, and strategies for meeting greenhouse gas reduction targets. In November, the Board adopted the Policy Framework in Attachment A that focuses on three main policy areas including: (1) future uncertainties; (2) economic development and opportunity; and (3) a performance-based investment strategy. As part of the Policy Framework, the board also adopted regional growth projections for population, housing, and employment for a horizon year of 2040.
4. Discussion/Analysis: In 2018, we will begin more focused technical analysis, research, policy discussions, and public outreach to build a plan that responds to the issues and questions identified in the Policy Framework. In addition to the adoption of the Policy Framework at the final board meeting of 2017, members of the Board requested that staff bring early discussion and analysis on challenges related to financial constraint, growth forecast, and greenhouse gas targets to allow for sufficient board discussion and time to deliberate on potential solutions. The Board also requested more detail on the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), specifically detail on how the region is doing toward meeting current housing targets. Transportation Committee Page | 2
At the committee meeting, staff will provide a brief update on current work and upcoming discussions and milestones that respond to the policy framework and board direction. Upcoming work includes a February Board discussion on housing, a January through March call for transportation project updates from sponsor agencies, a March discussion of the housing and employment growth forecast and implications for the land use forecast in the plan, and an April or May discussion of revenues to support the transportation investments considered in the plan.
5. Fiscal Impact/Grant Information: This item has no fiscal impact.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment - Policy Framework for the 2020 MTP/SCS Attachment
Policy Framework for the 2020 MTP/SCS This policy-level framework is a statement of major policy issues, challenges, and questions the SACOG Board has identified as priorities to be addressed in the region’s long-range transportation plan.
These priorities: • inform the overall work plan for the update • guide the specific analyses and research conducted for the plan • provide guiding principles for how the plan should address federal and state requirements for regional transportation plans
This framework guides the development of the 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020 MTP/SCS) in a manner that will best inform the transportation policy and investment decisions that are the responsibility of the SACOG Board and SACOG’s member jurisdictions.
What is the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy? The Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) is a federally and state required policy document for long-range transportation planning. The purpose of the MTP/SCS is to encourage and facilitate efficient development, operation, and management of the regional transportation system. Federal and state requirements dictate that the plan must cover a minimum of 20 years, identify transportation related programs and projects, be financially constrained, integrate with local land use planning, and conform to specific air quality standards, among other requirements. In addition to regulatory requirements, the SACOG Board of Directors provides guidance on the major policy initiatives and focus areas that are of local and regional importance and should be examined by the MTP/SCS.
Focus of the 2020 update The 2020 update to the MTP/SCS (2020 MTP/SCS) will focus on economic prosperity in the region’s diverse collection of rural, suburban, and urban communities: a plan that moves the region towards positive transportation, air quality, and quality of life outcomes for all residents, workers, and businesses. These economic prosperity opportunities, challenges, and questions are defined in Policy Framework Table below with examples of the research and analysis that will be used to explore these questions.
Foundational Assumptions for the 2020 MTP/SCS
The 2020 MTP/SCS will be based on the following foundational assumptions:
1
Attachment
Plan will meet federal and state requirements The MTP/SCS has a comprehensive and detailed set of federal and state requirements for process, modeling and analysis, outreach, and content that it must follow. The attached Regional Transportation Plan Requirements Checklist describes the full set of federal and state requirements for the 2020 MTP/SCS.
Plan will be based on new regional growth projections and have a horizon year of 2040 The MTP/SCS must plan for a single regional population, employment, and housing projection that is at least 20 years out. These assumptions must be based on the best and latest reasonably available information and data accessible to SACOG. The 2020 MTP/SCS will plan for the following six-county growth:
SACOG 2040 Regional Projections* 2016 2040 Change, 2016-2040
Population 2.45 million 3.08 million +628,000
Jobs 1.08 million 1.35 million +260,000
Households 0.86 million 1.09 million +233,000
*As an administrative step to be completed later in the 2020 MTP/SCS update, SACOG will remove the Tahoe Basin (which is not part of the SACOG region) from these projections. A detailed summary of the regional growth projections is included in Appendix B.
Policy Framework Through the plan update and the plan itself, SACOG will attempt to answer the question: How do we support an economically prosperous region?
The Policy Framework breaks this question into three component questions. Under each of the three questions are examples of research and analysis that will help answer each question and guide the development of the 2020 MTP/SCS.
Economic Prosperity: How do we support an economically prosperous region for all?
1) Future Uncertainty: 2) Economic Development 3) Performance-Based and Opportunity: Investment Strategy: In a time of change, how do we support near-term What growth and development What transportation implementation and plan for an pattern is needed to support infrastructure investments are uncertain future? and sustain regional economic needed to support an development and opportunity? economically prosperous region?
2
Attachment
• Examine challenges, • Analyze recent market • Examine strategies and opportunities, and performance for greenfield challenges for maintaining management strategies and infill, residential and a state-of-good repair. related to emerging non-residential transportation development. • Examine the unique technologies and services, transportation and such as autonomous • Identify infill capacity and economic challenges and vehicles and ways to support infill opportunities in urban, Transportation Network development. suburban and rural communities. Companies. • Examine the fiscal and regulatory challenges to • Examine how the region • Identify regional transportation needs, building affordable housing can support the flow of challenges, and strategies and identify potential business and commerce for both the short and solutions to barriers. within the larger megaregion. long-range planning • Identify potential solutions horizons. to the market and • Identify strategies for regulatory challenges to supporting workforce • Identify strategies to offset the projected long-term attached housing. development and access to opportunity for current decline in driving costs and • Develop community types loss of fuel revenues that and future residents and that consider the unique workers. create challenges for qualities of different types maintaining infrastructure, of communities to better • Analyze performance of managing congestion, and understand and support projects to determine the meeting greenhouse gas place-based economic best package of reduction targets. opportunities. transportation projects to serve residents and • Explore incentivizing infill • Consider the challenges businesses. and transit-oriented and opportunities faced by development, modernizing our diverse population, e.g. • Analyze how equitable the transit services, initiating young adults entering the planned transportation transportation pricing workforce, older adults investments are and how strategies, and pursuing transitioning into disadvantaged innovative programs that retirement, low-income communities and other reduce reliance on single and minority communities. low-income and/or occupancy vehicle travel. minority communities are • Examine strategies to affected. • Consider climate resiliency protect and enhance the with attention to planning region’s agricultural assets • Examine the potential for for natural disasters such and natural resources. enhancing transportation as flooding and wildfires. system performance • Explore strategies for through innovative • Examine the effect of e- fostering a business and commerce on management practices investment friendly (e.g., managed lanes, transportation, land use, climate. and revenues. congestion pricing)
• Explore strategies that • Research the importance accelerate innovation by of transit accessibility, road connecting the region’s conditions, and housing educational and research type and affordability on institutes. business siting decisions. • Consider strategies to attract more federal and state transportation dollars
3
Attachment
for the region, including better integration of goods movement. • Address the human and economic cost of accidents by targeting cost-effective investments on the worst- performing locations. • Consider the value of trails, recreation, and tourism in the selection of transportation investments.
Regional Transportation Plan Requirements Checklist
General
1 Does the RTP address no less than a 20-year planning horizon? (23 CFR 450.324(a))
2 Does the RTP include both long-range and short-range strategies/actions? (23 CFR 450.324(b))
Does the RTP address issues specified in the policy, action and financial elements identified in 3 California Government Code Section 65080?
Does the RTP address the 10 issues specified in the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) 4 component as identified in Government Code Sections 65080(b)(2)(B) and 65584.04(i)(1)?
a. Identify the general location of uses, residential densities, and building intensities within the region?
b. Identify areas within the region sufficient to house all the population of the region, including all economic segments of the population over the course of the planning period of the regional transportation plan taking into account net migration into the region, population growth, household formation and employment growth?
c. Identify areas within the region sufficient to house an eight-year projection of the regional housing need for the region pursuant to Government Code Section 65584?
d. Identify a transportation network to service the transportation needs of the region?
e. Gather and consider the best practically available scientific information regarding resource areas and farmland in the region as defined in subdivisions (a) and (b) of Government Code Section 65080.01?
f. Consider the state housing goals specified in Sections 65580 and 65581?
g. Utilize the most recent planning assumptions, considering local general plans and other factors?
4
Attachment
h. Set forth a forecasted development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network, and other transportation measures and policies, will reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks to achieve, if there is a feasible way to do so, the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets approved by the ARB?
i. Provide consistency between the development pattern and allocation of housing units within the region (Government Code 65584.04(i)(1)?
j. Allow the regional transportation plan to comply with Section 176 of the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Section 7506)?
5 Does the RTP include Project Intent i.e. Plan Level Purpose and Need Statements?
Does the RTP specify how travel demand modeling methodology, results and key assumptions were 6 developed as part of the RTP process? (Government Code 14522.2)
Consultation/Cooperation
Does the RTP contain a public involvement program that meets the requirements of Title 23, CFR 1 450.316(a)?
(i) Providing adequate public notice of public participation activities and time for public review and comment at key decision points, including a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed metropolitan transportation plan and the TIP;
(ii) Providing timely notice and reasonable access to information about transportation issues and processes;
(iii) Employing visualization techniques to describe metropolitan transportation plans and TIPs;
(iv) Making public information (technical information and meeting notices) available in electronically accessible formats and means, such as the World Wide Web;
(v) Holding any public meetings at convenient and accessible locations and times;
(vi) Demonstrating explicit consideration and response to public input received during the development of the metropolitan transportation plan and the TIP; (vii) Seeking out and considering the needs of those traditionally underserved by existing transportation systems, such as low-income and minority households, who may face challenges accessing employment and other services;
(viii) Providing an additional opportunity for public comment, if the final metropolitan transportation plan or TIP differs significantly from the version that was made available for public comment by the MPO and raises new material issues that interested parties could not reasonably have foreseen from the public involvement efforts;
(ix) Coordinating with the statewide transportation planning public involvement and consultation processes under subpart B of this part; and
(x) Periodically reviewing the effectiveness of the procedures and strategies contained in the participation plan to ensure a full and open participation process.
5
Attachment
Does the RTP contain a summary, analysis, and report on the disposition of significant written and oral comments received on the draft metropolitan transportation plan as part of the final 2 metropolitan transportation plan and TIP that meets the requirements of 23 CFR 450.316(a)(2), as applicable?
Did the MPO/RTPA consult with the appropriate State and local representatives including 3 representatives from environmental and economic communities; airport; transit; freight during the preparation of the RTP? (23 CFR 450.316(b))
Did the MPO/RTPA who has federal lands within its jurisdictional boundary involve the federal land 4 management agencies during the preparation of the RTP? (23 CFR 450.316(d))
Where does the RTP specify that the appropriate State and local agencies responsible for land use, 5 natural resources, environmental protection, conservation and historic preservation consulted? (23 CFR 450.324(g))
Did the RTP include a comparison with the California State Wildlife Action Plan and (if available) 6 inventories of natural and historic resources? (23 CFR 450.324(g)(1&2))
Did the MPO/RTPA who has a federally recognized Native American Tribal Government(s) and/or historical and sacred sites or subsistence resources of these Tribal Governments within its 7 jurisdictional boundary address tribal concerns in the RTP and develop the RTP in consultation with the Tribal Government(s)? (23 CFR 450.316(c))
Does the RTP address how the public and various specified groups were given a reasonable 8 opportunity to comment on the plan using the participation plan developed under 23 CFR part 450.316(a)? (23 CFR 450.316(a)(i))
Does the RTP contain a discussion describing the private sector involvement efforts that were used 9 during the development of the plan? (23 CFR 450.316(a))
Does the RTP contain a discussion describing the coordination efforts with regional air quality 10 planning authorities? (23 CFR 450.316(a)(2)) (MPO nonattainment and maintenance areas only)
Is the RTP coordinated and consistent with the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan? 11 (23 CFR 450.306(h))
12 Were the draft and adopted RTP posted on the Internet? (23 CFR 450.324(k))
Did the RTP explain how consultation occurred with locally elected officials? (Government Code 13 65080(D))
Did the RTP outline the public participation process for the sustainable communities strategy? 14 (Government Code 65080(E))
Was the RTP adopted on the estimated date provided in writing to State Department of Housing and Community Development to determine the Regional Housing Need Allocation and planning period 15 (start and end date) and align the local government housing element planning period (start and end date) and housing element adoption due date 18 months from RTP adoption date? (Government Code 65588(e)(5))
6
Attachment
Title VI and Environmental Justice
Does the public participation plan describe how the MPO will seek out and consider the needs of those traditionally underserved by existing transportation system, such as low-income and minority 1 households, who may face challenges accessing employment and other services? (23 CFR 450.316 (a)(1)(vii))
Has the MPO conducted a Title VI analysis that meets the legal requirements described in Section 2 4.2?
Has the MPO conducted an Environmental Justice analysis that meets the legal requirements 3 described in Section 4.2?
Modal Discussion
1 Does the RTP discuss intermodal and connectivity issues?
2 Does the RTP include a discussion of highways?
3 Does the RTP include a discussion of mass transportation?
4 Does the RTP include a discussion of the regional airport system?
5 Does the RTP include a discussion of regional pedestrian needs?
6 Does the RTP include a discussion of regional bicycle needs?
Does the RTP address the California Coastal Trail? (Government Code 65080.1) (For MPOs and RTPAs 7 located along the coast only)
8 Does the RTP include a discussion of rail transportation?
9 Does the RTP include a discussion of maritime transportation (if appropriate)?
10 Does the RTP include a discussion of goods movement?
Programming/Operations
Is the RTP consistent (to the maximum extent practicable) with the development of the regional ITS 1 architecture? (23 CFR 450.306(g))
Does the RTP identify the objective criteria used for measuring the performance of the transportation 2 system?
3 Does the RTP contain a list of un-constrained projects?
Financial
Does the RTP include a financial plan that meets the requirements identified in 23 CFR part 1 450.324(f)(11)?
Does the RTP contain a consistency statement between the first 4 years of the fund estimate and the 2 4-year STIP fund estimate? (65080(b)(4)(A))
3 Do the projected revenues in the RTP reflect Fiscal Constraint? (23 CFR part 450.324(f)(11)(ii))
7
Attachment
Does the RTP contain a list of financially constrained projects? Any regionally significant projects 4 should be identified. (Government Code 65080(4)(A))
Do the cost estimates for implementing the projects identified in the RTP reflect “year of expenditure 5 dollars” to reflect inflation rates? (23 CFR part 450.324(f)(11)(iv))
After 12/11/07, does the RTP contain estimates of costs and revenue sources that are reasonably 6 expected to be available to operate and maintain the freeways, highway and transit within the region? (23 CFR 450.324(f)(11)(i))
Does the RTP contain a statement regarding consistency between the projects in the RTP and the 7 ITIP? (2016 STIP Guidelines Section 33)
Does the RTP contain a statement regarding consistency between the projects in the RTP and the 8 RTIP? (2016 STIP Guidelines Section 19)
Does the RTP address the specific financial strategies required to ensure the identified TCMs from 9 the SIP can be implemented? (23 CFR part 450.324(f)(11)(vi) (nonattainment and maintenance MPOs only)
Environmental
Did the MPO/RTPA prepare an EIR or a program EIR for the RTP in accordance with CEQA 1 guidelines?
2 Does the RTP contain a list of projects specifically identified as TCMs, if applicable?
3 Does the RTP contain a discussion of SIP conformity, if applicable?
4 Does the RTP specify mitigation activities? (23 CFR part 450.324(f)(10))
5 Where does the EIR address mitigation activities?
Did the MPO/RTPA prepare a Negative Declaration or a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the RTP 6 in accordance with CEQA guidelines?
Does the RTP specify the TCMs to be implemented in the region? (federal nonattainment and 7 maintenance areas only)
8
Transportation Committee Meeting Date: 02/01/18 Agenda Item No.: 2018-February-9
Subject: Civic Lab Update
Action Consent Information R&F Report Workshop Prepared by: Raef Porter Approved by: Matt Carpenter Attachments: Y N
1. Issue: SACOG has conducted three Civic Lab workshops, and is finalizing the calendar for the remaining sessions.
2. Recommendation: None. This item is for information only.
3. Background: SACOG selected and began working with the nine Civic Lab teams in September. The attached document provides an overview of the teams and the mobility problems they have identified.
4. Discussion/Analysis: The full-day Civic Lab workshop sessions with all teams began in October, with additional workshops held in December and January. Workshops included:
October: Speakers from UC Davis Institute for Transportation Studies talking about autonomous, shared, and electric modes of transportation. The workshop also included a team-based work session on goal-setting.
December: A facilitated day of discussion and exercises focused on a deeper understanding of the problem, and creating a project charter to address that problem.
January: A panel on formulating a pilot, innovative methods for procurement, involving vendors in the scoping process, and joint development of projects. The second half of the day focused on moving from the team charter to an early call for proposals.
The next Civic Lab workshop is scheduled for February 14th. The workshop will include a session on how to evaluate a pilot project, and a half-day vendor showcase where teams will have the opportunity to talk with various vendors working on mobility solutions. This will be where teams begin to change the focus from a mobility challenge to solutions. Subsequent workshops will move more toward solutions, and begin to lay out the plan to launch a pilot.
5. Fiscal Impact/Grant Information: There is no fiscal impact at this time. Transportation Committee Page | 2
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment - Final Projects 2017 Attachment Lead Agency Identified Partners Issue How do you move students from 65th LRT station to campus, is there Sacramento State University City of Sacramento, Sacramento RT an opportunity for an AV shuttle pilot project?
El Dorado County Transit, Apple El Dorado County How can you solve congestion at Apple Hill? Hill Growers
Yuba Sutter Transit LGC Civic Spark Is there a residential TDM solution for suburban and rural areas?
Sacramento AQMD, and Historic Monterey Trail District How to provide ZEV solutions in disadvantaged communities SMUD
Yolo County Transportation City of Woodland, Yolo County, UC How do you site mobility hubs that take advantage of disruptive District Davis Planning technologies, and fit within the fabric of a city? Projects
Citrus Heights, City of Final Folsom, City of Rancho Sacramento RT, TMAs, Greater Are there new and better solutions to providing transit access in Cordova, and Sacramento Folsom Partnership, Los Rios CCD suburban areas? County Elk Grove Unified School North State BIA How can you move youth to jobs? District, Paratransit
UC Davis, Capitol Corridor JPA, Are these new mobility solutions that can reduce parking impacts at City of Davis Unitrans the Amtrak station?
Yolo County Transportation Yolo County, Knights Landing CSD, Are there new mobility solutions that can help provide better transit District Dunnigan CSD service in rural areas? Transportation Committee Meeting Date: 02/01/18 Agenda Item No.: 2018-February-10
Subject: Next Generation Transportation Demand Management
Action Consent Information R&F Report Workshop Prepared by: Sabrina Bradbury Approved by: Matt Carpenter Attachments: Y N
1. Issue: What approach should SACOG take to a Next Generation Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program?
2. Recommendation: This is an information and discussion item to provide SACOG staff direction and feedback on the direction of a future TDM program.
3. Background: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) focuses on moving people by more efficiently utilizing existing transportation infrastructure through projects and programs. Examples of programs are the promotion of carpooling, vanpooling, transit, bicycling, walking, telecommuting, and flexible work schedules as well as the implementation of policies, incentives and disincentives to get people to drive less. Among SACOG's most well-known programs are May is Bike Month, the Ready, Set, Ride Commute Challenge, and Try Transit Campaign that coincided with the opening of the Golden 1 Center. In 2016, the SACOG Board of Directors adopted a TDM Strategic Plan that set the course for the region's TDM programs and projects to be more performance-based and innovative, and produce more measurable reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
4. Discussion/Analysis: For the past 10 years, SACOG’s TDM Program was included as a Transportation Control Measure (TCM) in the State Implementation Program (SIP) for air quality. Because of this TCM requirement, SACOG funded a regional TDM program with a $1.2 million annual carve-out of federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds available to SACOG over the 10-year period. The SIP has been updated and now does not include TDM as a required TCM. Therefore, SACOG is not required to continue to fund the program beyond June 30, 2018. However, the TDM program is ripe with opportunities to innovate. TDM is responsible for a small but increasingly important percentage of the off- model Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) reductions that SACOG claims to help meet our regional greenhouse gas target set by the California Air Resources Board. TDM programs and pilot projects can also play an important role in supporting and integrating smart mobility and next generation transit efforts.
The board has expressed interest in the following areas: establishing the region as an innovator and new mobility testbed, advancing next generation transit efforts, and meeting Transportation Committee Page | 2
challenging greenhouse gas (GHG) targets. Staff recommends continuing a TDM program for two fiscal years beginning July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2020. Attachment A outlines potential program design options for a Next Generation TDM Program. Attachment B provides a highlights summary of TDM Strategic Plan implementation efforts that have occurred in the last 16 months. Additional detail will be provided as part of a proposal for extending the TDM program.
Staff requests committee member feedback and input on the redesign of the TDM program. This will help inform a more detailed proposal for future consideration by the Committee and Board.
5. Fiscal Impact/Grant Information: There is no fiscal impact for this information item. Staff will provide a subsequent item to include funding recommendations.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Future of SACOG’s TDM Program Attachment B - TDM Strategic Plan Implementation Update
Attachment A
Future of SACOG’s Transportation Demand Management Program
The mobility landscape is changing and SACOG’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program is a part of that change. The SACOG Board of Directors adopted a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategic Plan in October of 2016 that put the TDM program on a path to become a more performance based and innovative program that produces measurable results. Since the TDM program will no longer be a Transportation Control Measure (TCM) in the State Implementation Plan after June 30, 2018, there is an opportunity to shift the program even further to one that is more creative, nimble, performance‐based, ambitious, and emphasizes pilot testing. Given board member interest in establishing the region as a testbed for innovation, advancing next generation transit efforts, and needing to meet challenging greenhouse gas (GHG) targets, staff recommends continuing the TDM program. The TDM program is ripe with opportunities to innovate and it is responsible for a small but increasingly important percentage of the off‐model Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) reductions that we claim to help meet our regional GHG target. It can also play an important role in supporting and integrating smart mobility and next generation transit efforts. Strategic Plan Update:
The TDM Strategic Plan identified three major goals to guide the program through a 20‐month period that will end June 30, 2018 with the sunset of the TCM. In the last 16‐months staff completed the following actions to make the program more innovative, performance‐based and cost‐effective: Launched a TDM Innovations Grant program Launched a TDM Mini Grant program Created a partnership with University California Davis Institute for Transportation Studies (UC Davis ITS) to develop a performance measurement plan and conduct some performance measurement of pilots and campaigns Worked with Transportation Management Organizations to identify clear deliverables in contracts Scaled back investment in regional behavior change campaigns while maintaining participation levels Contacted MPOs, cities, counties, and other entities to learn more about which TDM programs and activities are most cost effective in order to inform our current and future programs Monitored national TDM initiatives and current research for innovative ideas to bring to our region Delivered regional quarterly workshops that encourage a wide range of stakeholder participation on topics including: first/last mile solutions, marketing/outreach, and behavior change through placemaking and pop‐ ups, also known as tactical urbanism
The mission of the TDM program is to reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled by implementing cost‐effective and innovative programs, services, projects, strategies, and policies that encourage and enable people to change their travel behavior. This mission, and the goals below, were developed through the TDM strategic planning process in 2016. Attachment B provides greater detail about the implementation of the TDM Strategic Plan organized by the three major goals. 1. Leverage existing and new partnerships to maximize technological opportunities, raise awareness of programs/services, and offer improved and new cost‐effective programs/services that support alternative mode use and behavior change.
Sacramento Area Council of Governments 1
Attachment A
2. Better integrate TDM with planning and project delivery both to improve the land use/transportation planning process and promote new multimodal infrastructure when it is completed. 3. Collect and analyze data to make smart investments that focus on long term behavior change.
Next Generation TDM – Opportunity for Redesign & Transformation
While SACOG is no longer required to fund TDM as a TCM, we have an opportunity to completely redesign the TDM program to double its focus on innovative, performance‐based programs that could create lasting behavior change. Below are draft options for three different TDM programs that staff has developed to frame the policy discussion around what a TDM program might look like beyond June 30, 2018. In each of the proposals below, there an increased focus on innovation and performance measurement. The program activities listed under each proposal are designed to give board members a framework for discussing possible TDM investments. The activities are meant to serve as examples and are not an exhaustive list.
With all of the options, the Board will need to decide what level of funding it would like to allocate to the program. Historically the program has been funded with a carve out of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds that flow to the region and can be used for many different programs and infrastructure projects. Staff recommends continuing this practice while continuing to look for additional‐and potentially more flexible‐revenues for the TDM program to ensure that we are able to continue to innovate, test new technologies and strategies for changing travel behavior, and claim the off‐model adjustments that help us achieve our GHG reduction goals. Cap & Trade, Capitol Valley Regional Service Authority for Freeways and Expressways, Caltrans planning grants, Office of Traffic and Safety grants, and Senate Bill 1 are potential funding sources that could replace or supplement CMAQ contributions to the program.
Option 1 – Nimble TDM Program
Overview: This proposal would provide grants for tried and tested traditional programs that we know to be effective TDM activities, while also providing funding for Innovations Grants, Mini Grants, and an ongoing Civic Lab curriculum focused on how to innovate, develop pilots, measure their success, and iterate. Guidelines for traditional program grants would prioritize employer and residential programs that offer direct incentives or disincentives such as employer parking pricing initiatives, fare free transit, employer shuttles, subsidies for alternative modes of transportation, residential packages that include free transit passes, and leasing/rental company programs that offer a suite of TDM benefits to residents. The Nimble TDM option includes funding to host one regional campaign, TDM workshops, and a trip planning/ridematching website, but scales back these investments to focus most of the funding on competitive grant programs and prize competitions (Innovations Grants, Mini Grants, Civic Lab, and grants for traditional TDM programs).
Performance Measurement: Performance measurement would be the responsibility of the grant awardees with limited support from SACOG staff.
Activities not included: Option 1 discontinues the fall behavior change campaign, vanpool subsidy program, and external performance measurement contract (grant recipients would still be required to measure their performance). Option 1 does not assume an innovative role aside from Civic Lab and the grant programs.
Risk: Grant applicants may need more assistance with performance measurement, research, and development of pilots than resources available.
Sacramento Area Council of Governments 2
Attachment A
Option 2 – Innovative TDM
Overview: Option 2 embraces new mobility by emphasizing innovation, testing and iteration. In this option, SACOG would provide funding some funding to residential programs because they are relatively untested in our region, and would direct most of the resources toward innovative grant programs and launching new initiatives in TDM. This option would prioritize funding for projects like Rancho Cordova’s Connections to Transit pilot, West Sacramento’s On Demand Micro Transit pilot and Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s On Demand Schoolpool and Carpool pilot. We would fund a New Mobility Incubator Challenge to encourage private sector start‐ups to compete in mobility‐ related categories for funding to pilot projects within our region. Additionally, we would create suburban employer campus hubs that take several employers and develops an internal hub of shared mobility services, and we would hire an Innovator in Residence focused on tracking new transportation innovations to spur ideas for our region. This option would also continue the Civic Lab curriculum. We would host or curate events that encourage private sector participation in creating more robust innovation in the field, similar to existing Hacker Lab or Transportation Camp events. Strategic partnerships would be developed to execute these activities.
Performance Measurement: Pilot projects and programs would be measured through contracts managed by SACOG.
Activities not included: This option does not include regional campaigns, grants for traditional employer TDM programs, or a trip planning/ridematching database.
Risk: There would not be any regional programs that local TDM partners could leverage and no grant funding for some traditional programs known to reduce VMT. This could result in local city, county, and transportation management organization programs not having sufficient funds to continue operating.
Option 3 – Hybrid TDM
Overview: In the Hybrid TDM option we would take aspects of the Nimble and Innovative proposals and invest heavily in TDM as a whole. This combination of robust innovation efforts, tried and tested traditional programs, and enhanced research and development work would offer a strong regional program for partners to leverage and utilize while continuing to move the program into uncharted territory. We would launch many of the innovation activities, including a TDM consultant service for new businesses in the region and the New Mobility Incubator Challenge where we would offer prizes for private sector to propose solutions to transportation related problems. We would convene and coordinate partner efforts including those related to smart mobility technology, next generation transit, and pilot testing. We would provide startup funding for an ongoing vanpool subsidy program in which we would report vanpool miles to the National Transit Database (NTD) to claim available funding in future years. It takes approximately two years for NTD funds to flow to the region. NTD funding would create an ongoing revenue stream for a program that would sustain itself in future years. We would also provide a carpool subsidy program in a potential partnership with Transportation Networking companies to offer an incentive to start private‐sector carpooling services in the region. We would put out a solicitation for a contractor to offer a regional emergency ride home program to all employees in the region, not just those that are members of TMOs, which is the existing practice.
Performance Measurement: Option 3 would include an external performance measurement contract as well additional research and development activities to ensure we are collecting solid data to inform future iterations of activities.
Activities not included: Option 3 does not include smaller‐scale activities in the Innovation and Traditional categories like the Innovator in Residence, regional campaigns, or employer‐focused grant programs.
Sacramento Area Council of Governments 3
Attachment A
Risk: Identifying sufficient funding to do to all of the activities will be challenging, but it would come with the largest VMT reductions.
Summary
These options could be mixed and matched in a variety of different ways to form a truly unique and innovative TDM program. These examples are not meant to constrain board members to selecting one option over another but to instead encourage dialogue around the possible paths this program could take. Regardless of the direction the board chooses to take the program, there will be a need to adapt to the new mobility landscape around us, which continues to change rapidly with new technologies and mobility options.
Sacramento Area Council of Governments 4 Attachment A
Next Generation TDM Program Options
Current TDM CATEGORIES Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Program
Fiscal Year 17/18 Nimble TDM Innovative TDM Hybrid TDM
Innovation Innovations Grants x x x X Mini Grants x x x New Mobility Incubator Challenge x x Suburban Employer Campus Hubs x x Transportation Camp/Hacker Lab Event (s) x x Innovator in Residence Internship Program x Transportation Ordinance Pilots x Regional New Business Transportation Consultants x x Ongoing Civic Lab Program x x x Tested Traditional Programs Traditional TDM Program Grants x x x -Employer Programs Grants x x -Residential Programs Grants x x x -Schools Programs Grants x May is Bike Month (spring campaign) x x Ready Set Ride (fall campaign) x Trip Planning & Ride Matching Website x x x Vanpool Subsidy x x Carpool Subsidy x Regional Emergency Ride Home x Program Marketing x x Research & Development Performance measurement x x x Tracking State of Practice x x x Hosted Workshops & Partner Coordination x x x
Sacramento Area Council of Governments 5 Attachment B
Transportation Demand Management Strategic Plan Implementation Update
Goal 1. Leverage existing and new partnerships to maximize technological opportunities, raise awareness of programs/services, and offer improved and new cost‐effective programs/services that support alternative mode use and behavior change. (Actions 1‐3)
Objective 1A. Sharpen the focus and efficiencies of SACOG’s Traditional TDM Programs.
Objective 1B. Enhance user experience and increase mobility options through technology‐based solutions.
The actions under this goal include working with Transportation Management Organizations (TMOs) to strengthen performance measurement, forming new partnerships, launching new grant programs, making low‐cost updates to SacRegion511.org and SacRegionCommuterClub.org, and running commute change awareness campaigns on smaller budgets to maximize existing resources. Staff examined the benefits of offering 1‐2 Emergency Ride Home (ERH) to all employees in the region, not just those that are members of TMOs, but TMOs could offer additional ERH vouchers to members, and assessed the cost versus financial returns of reporting vanpool mileage to the National Transit Database. Both of these programs would be very cost‐effective investments should the board be interested in funding them. Based on national research, the most cost‐effective tool to change single‐occupancy car commuting continues to be parking pricing.
Through conversations with regional partners and other MPOs, we have found that residents are very interested in a one‐stop website or application where they can plan trips and potentially pay for mobility services all in one place. Currently there is not a free application or website (such as Google Maps or Transit App) that has fully integrated ride matching with transit, ride hailing, bike share and all the various modes of travel, but this is the direction the market is heading. There are a variety of private sector firms that are partnering with public sector organizations and/or offering services that are much closer to a one‐stop solution than what we currently have in the region. Until such a website/app is purchased or developed for free, there is limited value in creating a regional marketing and advertising strategy and therefore this action has not been completed. Currently, other regions all have some form of ride‐matching database and trip planning tool that they promote and use as at least part of their methodology to measure vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reductions resulting from their programs. Most MPOs agree that it won’t be long before there is a free or low‐cost one‐stop solution and that it’s best not to spend resources developing something unique to any single region.
Staff is continuing to rethink investments in campaigns and direct incentives while examining the TDM field for innovations and new ideas. We have been testing various targeted marketing and communications strategies in our campaigns and we continue to track the influence they are having on behavior change. Through the TDM Innovation Grants and Civic Lab efforts we have been reaching out to private partners to encourage them to test new ideas in our region in order to leverage and maximize public funds.
Goal 2. Better integrate TDM with planning and project delivery both to improve the land use/transportation planning process and promote new multimodal infrastructure when it is completed. (Action 4)
Objective 2A. Support Blueprint and MTP/SCS Implementation Efforts that Increase Travel Choices, Connectivity, and Accessibility.
Sacramento Area Council of Governments 1 Attachment B
TDM activities typically focus on encouraging the use of transportation options that exist today, but TMOs report feedback about additional options people would like to have today and in the future. Therefore, staff has been working with members and partners to better inform planning efforts to ensure that multi‐modal projects are being planned and delivered in order to maximize TDM efforts. Internally, TDM staff have worked with the Project Delivery Team at SACOG to send emails to Commuter Club registrants in specific geographies when a new bike or pedestrian project is completed or where people live and work near transit stops. We continue to identify opportunities to promote alternatives modes in areas where a variety of transportation options exist and not just blanket promotions to people who may or may not have options beyond driving.
We have expanded the TDM Task Force contact list to include different sectors and have tripled attendance at meetings by securing speakers on topics that align with TDM implementation, pilot projects, and, marketing/communication efforts. We have worked with the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Partnership to identify opportunities where TDM can leverage the work of the ITS Master Plan and Architecture updates to provide residents travel information to help them plan trips and drive less often or take routes that have less traffic.
Goal 3. Collect & analyze data to make smart investments that focus on long term behavior change. (Actions 5‐7)
Objective 3A. Evolve to Become a Truly Performance‐Based Regional Program
Objective 3B. Diversify TDM Funding Sources and Leverage External Funds to Implement Creative, Innovative and Long‐Term Efforts
Data collection and performance measurement in TDM programs continues to be challenging for all programs across the country, in large part because there are so many different factors that influence behavior and it is difficult to tease out exactly which programs are having the greatest impact. As such, SACOG has continued to fund May is Bike Month and Commuter Club websites while exploring other technologies that may serve as better data collection and analysis tools. There are websites and applications on the market that come with reporting and customer relations management features that can be very useful in measuring program effectiveness.
One low‐cost way we collected data is via electronic surveys to campaign participants to assess the effectiveness of May is Bike Month, Try Transit and Ready Set Ride campaigns. We found that at least 25% of survey respondents say our TDM campaigns have an impact on getting campaign participants to change from driving alone to other modes of transportation. It should be noted that these are not scientific polls of all residents in the region and therefore do not give us a full picture of the broader awareness and impact of our campaigns, informational web pages, and employer programs. Collecting robust data like that will require more survey work, which is very expensive. The Household Travel Survey that will be completed later this year will provide some excellent benchmark data against which we can compare our TDM surveys and further assess the effectiveness of our programs. The work with UC Davis ITS includes identifying methods and technologies that are more affordable than scientific polling that will allow us to collect this information via big data and existing sources, and then analyze it as efficiently as possible.
Sacramento Area Council of Governments 2 Transportation Committee Meeting Date: 02/01/2018 Agenda Item No: 2018-February-11
Subject: Request to Change Scope of Work for West Sacramento Riverfront Street Extension Project
Action Consent Information R&F Report Workshop Prepared by: Greg Chew Approved by: Matt Carpenter Attachments: Y N
1. Issue: Should the SACOG Board approve the changes to the City of West Sacramento’s scope of work for the Riverfront Street Extension Project that was funded through SACOG’s Community Design Program in 2015?
2. Recommendation: None, this is for information only. Please note that this item is going to the Land Use and Natural Resources (LUNR) Committee meeting for action. Comments made at the Transportation Committee meeting will be shared at the LUNR meeting prior to any action being taken.
3. Background: In December 2015, the SACOG Board of Directors approved funding awards for Round 7 of the SACOG Community Design Program. Cities and counties in Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo and Yuba apply for competitive grants for design and construction projects in public right-of-ways that implement the Blueprint principles and the Sustainable Community Strategy. The grants are awarded based on the recommendations of an independent committee to the SACOG Board. Applicants provide a description of what they are trying to achieve, how it promotes the Blueprint principles, and a scope of work for how they will achieve it.
SACOG awarded the City of West Sacramento $1,935,500 of its requested $3,681,000. The city would construct a new 0.3 mile multi-modal street connection to extend Riverfront Street from Mill Street to a new four-way intersection. The connection includes a two-lane roadway, sidewalks, protected bike lanes, dry and wet utilities, lighting, and landscaping, and will accommodate a future north-south streetcar line extending from Tower Bridge Gateway through the Bridge District. The purpose of the project is to enable the build-out of riverfront mixed-use developments and allow multi-modal connectivity in the area.
The City of West Sacramento is requesting to modify the scope of work. After additional engineering work was conducted, the proposed design is no longer cost effective. City staff was able to develop an alternative design that is more cost effective and meets the major goals of the original project. The city’s proposed changes and reason are explained in both the request letter and a more detailed staff report to the West Sacramento City Council (see Transportation Committee Page | 2
attachment A). The City Council approved the request conditioned upon the city staff receiving approval from SACOG.
4. Discussion/Analysis: The SACOG staff recommendation is for the SACOG Board to approve the changes. This is recommended because the changes are in spirit of the original project award. Staff believes that these changes would not have altered the funding recommendations nor affect the objective of the project. Scope changes are relatively frequent among awarded projects because of new information on existing physical conditions and more cost effective design solutions subsequently being developed. Both of these factors play into this situation.
5. Fiscal Impact/Grant Information: There is no fiscal impact.
ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C
Attachment A Attachment B RIVERFRONT STREET EXTENSION WEST SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA
PROPOSED SCOPE CHANGE BRIDGE STREET
REMOVED FROM ORIGINAL SCOPE
PORTION OF FUTURE MIXED USE RIVERFRONT LAND STREET IN BOTH ORIGINAL AND PROPOSED SCOPE CHANGE STREET CAR FACILITY
PROPOSED ROAD MILL STREET WIDENING FOR CYCLE TRACK AND FRONTAGE FOR MIXED USE AREA
STREET CAR FACILITY RIVERFRONT STREET
5TH STREET
FUTURE MIXED USE LAND
REMOVED FROM 15TH STREET ORIGINAL PROPOSAL NO LONGER CONSTRUCTING INTERSECTION Attachment C
1 Attachment C
2 Attachment C
3 Attachment C
4