Regular Meeting No. 2018-10A November 15, 2018 2:00 p.m.

AGENDA

Regular Board of Directors Meeting Riverside Transit Agency Board Room 1825 Third Street Riverside, CA 92507

Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in this meeting, or any person with limited English proficiency (LEP) who requires language assistance to communicate with the Riverside Transit Agency Board of Directors during the meeting, should contact the Riverside Transit Agency Clerk of the Board, telephone number (951) 565-5044, no fewer than two business days prior to this meeting to enable the Riverside Transit Agency to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility or language assistance for this meeting.

Agenda item descriptions are intended to provide members of the public a general summary of business to be conducted or discussed. Posting of any recommended action on an agenda item does not indicate what action will be taken. The Board of Directors may take any action it believes is appropriate on the agenda item and is not limited in any way by the notice of any recommendation.

All documents related to any agenda item are available for public inspection at www.riversidetransit.com or through the Clerk of the Board’s office at the Riverside Transit Agency, 1825 Third Street, Riverside, CA 92507.

ITEM RECOMMENDATION

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

RTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING PAGE 2 NOVEMBER 15, 2018

ITEM RECOMMENDATION

4. PUBLIC COMMENTS – NON-AGENDA ITEMS RECEIVE COMMENTS Members of the public may address the Board regarding any item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board; however, no action may be taken on off-agenda items unless authorized by law. Comments shall be limited to matters not listed on the agenda. Members of the public may comment on any matter listed on the agenda at the time that the Board considers that matter. Each person's presentation is limited to a maximum of three (3) minutes.

5. PRESENTATION

TO OUR DEDICATED BOARD MEMBERS FOR THEIR SERVICE TO THE RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY

6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – OCTOBER 25, 2018 BOARD MEETING (P.6) APPROVE

7. CONSENT CALENDAR: All items on the Consent Calendar will be approved by one motion and there will be no discussion on individual items unless a Board member or member of the public requests a specific item to be pulled from the calendar for separate discussion.

7A. Financial Profile – October 2018 (P.12) RECEIVE AND FILE

7B. Ridership Report – October 2018 (P.25) RECEIVE AND FILE

7C. On Time Performance – October 2018 (P.32) RECEIVE AND FILE

7D. Travel Training Report – October 2018 (P.33) RECEIVE AND FILE

7E. Board Administration and Operations Committee Meeting – November 7, 2018 Draft Minutes (P.35) RECEIVE AND FILE

7F. Board Budget and Finance Committee Meeting – November 7, 2018 Draft Minutes (P.39) RECEIVE AND FILE

RTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING PAGE 3 NOVEMBER 15, 2018

ITEM RECOMMENDATION

CONSENT CALENDAR CONTINUED:

7G. October FY19 Farebox Recovery Ratio (FRR) Performance and FYE19 FRR Projection (P.42) RECEIVE AND FILE

7H. Transportation NOW Update – October 2018 (P.44) RECEIVE AND FILE

7I. Agency Credit Card Statement – October 2018 (P.46) RECEIVE AND FILE

7J. Authorize a Youth Holiday Fare of 25 Cents per Boarding from December 21, 2017 through January 13, 2018 (P.48) APPROVE (Board Administration and Operations Committee Reviewed and Recommended – 11/7/18)

7K. Authorization to Award Agreement No. 18-039 to Trillium CNG for the Purchase and Installation of a Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Compressor at the Agency’s Riverside Facility (P.51) APPROVE (Board Budget and Finance Committee Reviewed and Recommended – 11/7/18)

7L. Authorization to Terminate Agreement No. 17-070 with Absolute International Security and Award Agreement No. 17-070-A to Allied Universal for Security Guard Services (P.53) APPROVE (Board Administration and Operations Committee Reviewed and Recommended – 11/7/18)

REGULAR CALENDAR:

8. ATTITUDE AND AWARENESS MARKET ASSESSMENT AND STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS STUDY FINAL REPORT (P.56) RECEIVE AND FILE (Board Administration and Operations Committee Reviewed and Recommended – 11/7/18)

RTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING PAGE 4 NOVEMBER 15, 2018

ITEM RECOMMENDATION

9. AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 18-035 TO TOKEN TRANSIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGENCY’S NEW MOBILE TICKETING APPLICATION (APP) (P.212) APPROVE (Board Administration and Operations Committee Reviewed and Recommended – 11/7/18)

10. FISCAL YEAR 2017/2018 (FY18) FINANCIAL AUDIT RESULTS (P.217) ACCEPT (Board Budget and Finance Committee Reviewed and Recommended – 11/7/18)

11. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS

12. ANNOUNCEMENTS

13. NEXT MEETING

Thursday, December 13, 2018 2:00 p.m. Riverside Transit Agency Board Room 1825 Third Street Riverside, CA 92507

14. CLOSED SESSION

A CLOSED SESSION WILL BE HELD PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 TO DISCUSS THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, LOCAL 1277. THE DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY IS LARRY RUBIO, AND THE DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, LOCAL 1277 IS ART AGUILAR

RTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING PAGE 5 NOVEMBER 15, 2018

ITEM RECOMMENDATION

15. CLOSED SESSION

A. PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957 TO EVALUATE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LARRY RUBIO

B. PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 TO MEET WITH DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE, CHAIRMAN ART WELCH, REGARDING THE COMPENSATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LARRY RUBIO

16. CONSIDERATION OF SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT WITH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LARRY RUBIO

17. MEETING ADJOURNMENT

RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY Board of Directors Minutes of Meeting No. 2018-09A Regular Meeting October 25, 2018

1. CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Art Welch called the regular meeting of the Riverside Transit Agency Board of Directors to order at 2:00 p.m., on Thursday, October 25, 2018 in the Riverside County Board of Supervisors Chambers, 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, CA.

2. ROLL CALL

Present: 1. Art Welch, City of Banning 2. Nancy Carroll, City of Beaumont 3. Linda Molina, City of Calimesa 4. 1Jason Scott, City of Corona 5. Linda Krupa, City of Hemet 6. Daryl Hickman, City of Lake Elsinore 7. Greg August, City of Menifee 8. David Marquez, City of Moreno Valley 9. Randon Lane, City of Murrieta 10. Berwin Hanna, City of Norco 11. Tonya Burke, City of Perris 12. Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside 13. Alonso Ledezma, City of San Jacinto 14. Bridgette Moore, City of Wildomar 15. 2Jerry Sincich, County of Riverside, District I 16. 3Ike Bootsma, County of Riverside, District II 17. 4Jeff Comerchero, County of Riverside, District III 18. 5Barry Busch, County of Riverside, District V

Absent: 1. Dawn Haggerty, City of Canyon Lake 2. Brandon Plott, City of Eastvale 3. Anthony Kelly, Jr., City of Jurupa Valley 4. Maryann Edwards, City of Temecula

1Alternate for City of Corona 2Alternate for Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside, District I 3Alternate for John Tavaglione, County of Riverside, District II 4Alternate for Chuck Washington, County of Riverside, District III 5Alternate for Marion Ashley, County of Riverside, District V

Item 6 6

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

First Vice-Chairman Randon Lane led the Pledge of Allegiance.

4. PUBLIC COMMENTS – NON-AGENDA ITEMS

None.

5. PRESENTATION

Chairman Welch made a presentation to the Riverside Transit Agency Maintenance Department and Director of Maintenance Adam Chavez for achieving a safety milestone of 500 days with no lost time injuries.

6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – SEPTEMBER 27, 2018 BOARD MEETING

M/S/C (BURKE/LEDEZMA) approving the minutes of the September 27, 2018 Board meeting as corrected.

The motion carried unanimously.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (LANE/BURKE) approving the receipt and file of Item A – Financial Profile – September 2018. The motion carried unanimously. M/S/C (LANE/BURKE) approving the receipt and file of Item B – Ridership Report – September 2018. The motion carried unanimously. M/S/C (LANE/BURKE) approving the receipt and file of Item C – On Time Performance – September 2018. The motion carried unanimously.

M/S/C (LANE/BURKE) approving the receipt and file of Item D – Travel Training Report – September 2018. The motion carried unanimously.

M/S/C (LANE/BURKE) approving the receipt and file of Item E – Board Administration and Operations Committee Meeting – October 2, 2018 Draft Minutes. The motion carried unanimously.

M/S/C (LANE/BURKE) approving the receipt and file of Item F – Board Budget and Finance Committee Meeting – October 2, 2018 Draft Minutes. The motion carried unanimously.

M/S/C (LANE/BURKE) approving the receipt and file of Item G – September FY19 Farebox Recovery Ratio (FRR) Performance and FYE19 FRR Projection. The motion carried unanimously.

Item 6 7

ITEM 7 - CONSENT CALENDAR CONTINUED:

M/S/C (LANE/BURKE) approving the receipt and file of Item H – Transportation NOW Update – September 2018. The motion carried unanimously.

M/S/C (LANE/BURKE) approving the receipt and file of Item I – Agency Credit Card Statement – September 2018. The motion carried unanimously.

M/S/C (LANE/BURKE) approving the receipt and file of Item J – Quarterly Comprehensive Route Performance Report. The motion carried unanimously.

M/S/C (LANE/BURKE) approving Item K – Vehicle Transfer Applications for Consideration to be Placed on the Riverside Transit Agency’s Retired Vehicle Recipient Waitlist. The motion carried unanimously.

M/S/C (LANE/BURKE) approving Item L – Free Bus Rides on New Year’s Eve. The motion carried unanimously.

M/S/C (LANE/BURKE) approving Item M – Approve Revisions to the Agency’s Procurement Policies and Procedures Manual. The motion carried unanimously.

M/S/C (LANE/BURKE) approving Item N – Authorization to Award Agreement No. 19- 002 to ND Construction Company for Construction and Installation Services for Ten Bus Stop Locations. The motion carried unanimously.

8. AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 19-001 TO SUDWEEKS CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION SERVICES TO UPGRADE THE FRONT LOBBY AT THE AGENCY’S RIVERSIDE FACILITY

M/S/C (KRUPA/CARROLL) as to the following:

• Authorize staff to award Agreement No. 19-001 to Sudweeks Construction, Inc. for the Front Lobby Security Upgrade Project at the Riverside facility in the amount of $112,500 with a ten-percent contingency of $11,250 for a total project budget amount of $123,750.

The motion carried unanimously.

9. AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 18-048 TO CARTER EXECUTIVE CONSULTING, INC. TO CONDUCT A FARE POLICY STUDY

M/S/C (BOOTSMA/LEDEZMA) as to the following:

Item 6 8

• Authorize staff to award Agreement No. 18-048 to Carter Executive Consulting, Inc. to conduct a fare policy study in an amount that will not exceed $124,980.

The motion carried unanimously.

10. SELECTION OF NOMINATING COMMITTEE FOR 2019 BOARD OFFICER ELECTION

Agency General Counsel, Barbara Raileanu, presented the policy for the Board Officers Nominating Committee and then proceeded to draw, by lot, the names for the nominating committee.

The following names were drawn by Ms. Raileanu:

1. Greg August, City of Menifee 2. Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside 3. Brandon Plott, City of Eastvale 4. David Marquez, City of Moreno Valley

Alternates:

1. Tonya Burke, City of Perris 2. Linda Molina, City of Calimesa

Ms. Raileanu noted that the Clerk of the Board will schedule a meeting of the Nominating Committee prior to the regular December Board meeting.

11. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS

Board member comments were made by Director Linda Molina, Director Bridgette Moore, Director Berwin Hanna, First Vice-Chairman Randon Lane, Director Linda Krupa, Director Nancy Carroll, Director Daryl Hickman and Director Alonso Ledezma.

12. ANNOUNCEMENTS

Announcements were made by Mr. Larry Rubio.

13. NEXT MEETING

Regular Meeting of the RTA Board of Directors Thursday, November 15, 2018, 2:00 p.m. Riverside Transit Agency Board Room 1825 Third St. Riverside, CA 92507

Item 6 9

14. MEETING ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 2:38 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Larry Rubio Chief Executive Officer

Tammi Ford Clerk of the Board of Directors

Item 6 10

ADDITIONAL ATTENDANCE – OCTOBER 25, 2018

NAME ORGANIZATION/TITLE

1. LARRY RUBIO RTA, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 2. BARBARA RAILEANU RTA, AGENCY GENERAL COUNSEL 3. TAMMI FORD RTA, CLERK OF THE BOARD 4. TOM FRANKLIN RTA, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER 5. CRAIG FAJNOR RTA, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 6. VINCE ROUZAUD RTA, CHIEF PROCUREMENT AND LOGISTICS OFFICER 7. LAURA CAMACHO RTA, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES OFFICER 8. ADAM CHAVEZ RTA, DIRECTOR OF MAINTENANCE 9. JIM KNEEPKENS RTA, DIRECTOR OF MARKETING 10. NATALIE ZARAGOZA RTA, DIRECTOR OF CONTRACTS 11. RICK MAJORS RTA, DIRECTOR OF RISK MANAGEMENT 12. RICK KACZEROWSKI RTA, DIRECTOR OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES 13. ERIC USTATION RTA, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS MANAGER 14. BRAD WEAVER RTA, MEDIA & PUBLIC RELATIONS MANAGER 15. KIMBER SALTER RTA, DEPUTY CLERK OF THE BOARD 16. LUCIANO ROSE RTA, OPERATIONS MANAGER 17. STEPHANIE SIRLS RTA, CONTRACT OPERATIONS MANAGER 18. KRISTIN WARSINSKI RTA, GRANTS MANAGER 19. ROBERT FERNANDEZ RTA, MAINTENANCE MANAGER 20. LISA ALMILLI RTA, MOBILITY MANAGER 21. MELISSA BLANKENSHIP RTA, CONTRACTS MANAGER 22. FRANCISCO HARO RTA, ASST. CONTRACT OPERATIONS MANAGER 23. FRANCHOT LARSEN RTA, COACH OPERATOR 24. ERIC LEWIS CITY OF MORENO VALLEY 25. KEITH WHITE EASTVALE RESIDENT 26. DAVID MOLINA CALIMESA RESIDENT 27. DYLAN-MARIE ANTOINE RIVERSIDE RESIDENT 28. MICHAEL SELEY SCAG 29. DENIS TUREN RIVERSIDE RESIDENT

Item 6 11 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY 1825 Third Street Riverside, CA 92507

November 15, 2018

TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS

THRU: Larry Rubio, Chief Executive Officer

FROM: Craig Fajnor, Chief Financial Officer

SUBJECT: Financial Profile – October 2018

Summary: The attached report summarizes the Agency’s performance in the areas of revenues, operating expenses, ridership, and service levels (in terms of revenue service hours and revenue service miles) for fiscal year-to-date October FY19.

Recommendation:

Receive and file.

Item 7A 12

FINANCIAL PROFILE

October 2018

Overview

October total revenue of $10,337,211 is $1,535,961 or 18 percent over budget. Year-to-date revenue of $38,169,226 is $3,304,256 or 10 percent over budget. Both the monthly and year-to-date variances are attributable to greater than anticipated capital contributions, farebox, and CNG-related revenues.

October operating expenses of $6,994,241 are $193,152 or 3 percent under budget. Year-to-date expenses of $27,452,458 are $694,884 or 3 percent under budget. Variance analysis by cost element is provided in the financial discussion below.

During the month of October, RTA carried a total of 879,188 passengers. October ridership consisted of 689,359 passengers on directly operated fixed routes, 152,570 on contracted fixed routes, and 37,259 Dial-A- Ride/Taxi Overflow trips. October 2018 ridership reflects an increase of 7 percent over October 2017. FY19 year-to-date system-wide ridership of 2,985,035 reflects a 3 percent increase over the same period in FY18. Monthly ridership on fixed route service increased 7 percent over the prior year, while FY19 year-to-date fixed route service ridership increased 4 percent over FY18. Monthly DAR/Taxi Overflow trips increased 1 percent over the same month in the prior year. FY19 year-to-date DAR/Taxi Overflow trips decreased 2 percent over FY18.

During October, RTA provided a total of 76,742 revenue service hours and logged a total of 1,160,897 combined revenue miles. This reflects a 4 percent increase in hours and a 3 percent increase in miles, respectively, when comparing October 2018 to October 2017. FY19 year-to-date actual revenue service hours of 296,944 and revenue miles of 4,533,443 reflect an increase of 4 percent in hours and an increase of 4 percent in miles, respectively, when compared to FY18.

Item 7A 13 October farebox revenue of $1,266,882 is $264,316 or 26 percent over budget. The year-to-date farebox revenue of $4,021,888 is $364,308 or 10 percent over budget. Both the monthly and year-to-date variances are attributed to greater than anticipated pass sales and ridership.

Financial Discussion Salaries and benefits expenses of $3,383,697 are $124,573 or 4 percent under budget in October. Year-to-date salaries and benefits expenses of $13,589,917 are $311,738 or 2 percent under budget. Both the monthly and year-to-date variances are attributed to unfilled positions.

Purchased transportation expenses of $2,633,747 are $34,576 or 1 percent under budget in October. Year-to-date purchased transportation expenses of $9,948,066 are $274,922 or 3 percent under budget. The monthly variance is attributed to contractual efficiencies. The year-to-date variance is attributed to less than anticipated DAR demand as well as contractual efficiencies.

Total services expenses of $247,365 are $45,887 or 16 percent under budget in October. Year-to-date service expenses of $927,682 are $88,943 or 9 percent under budget. Both the monthly and year-to-date variances are attributed to less than anticipated CNG compressor maintenance and contract services expenses.

Materials and supplies expenses of $295,848 are $5,517 or 2 percent over budget in October. Year-to-date materials and supplies expenses of $1,329,672 are $66,828 or 5 percent over budget. The monthly variance is attributed to greater than anticipated facilities supplies. The year-to-date variance is attributed to greater than anticipated CNG fuel expense.

Other expenses of $433,585 are $6,367 or 2 percent over budget in October. Year-to-date other expenses of $1,657,120 are $86,109 or 5 percent under budget. The monthly variance is due to greater than anticipated liability insurance expense. The year-to-date variance is due to less than anticipated liability insurance and information technology expenses.

Item 7A 14 Item 7A 15 Item 7A 16 Item 7A 17 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY REVENUE GRAPHS October 2018

Passenger Fares Local Operating

1,266,882 5,813,144 5,807,378 1,300,000 6,000,000 1,200,000 1,002,566 1,100,000 5,500,000 1,000,000 900,000 5,000,000 Actual Budget Actual Budget

State Operating Federal Operating

133,240 1,691,070 1,695,353 150,000 125,999 1,750,000

125,000 1,650,000

1,550,000 100,000 Actual Budget Actual Budget

Item 7A 18 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY REVENUE GRAPHS October 2018

Other Operating

256,066 300,000

250,000 156,714 200,000

150,000

100,000 Actual Budget

Item 7A 19 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY REVENUE GRAPHS October 2018

Ridership

879,188

900,000 820,812 850,000

800,000

750,000

700,000

650,000 October 2017 October 2018

Item 7A 20 Item 7A 21 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY EXPENSE GRAPHS October 2018

Salaries & Benefits Purchased Transportation

3,508,270 3,600,000 2,800,000 2,633,747 2,668,323 3,383,697

3,400,000 2,600,000

3,200,000 2,400,000 Actual Budget Actual Budget

Services Materials & Supplies

295,848 290,330 350,000 293,252 350,000 247,365 300,000 250,000 250,000

200,000 150,000 Actual Budget Actual Budget

Item 7A 22 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY EXPENSE GRAPHS October 2018

Other Expenses

433,585 427,218 450,000

400,000

350,000 Actual Budget

Item 7A 23 Item 7A 24 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY 1825 Third Street Riverside, CA 92507

November 15, 2018

TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS

THRU: Larry Rubio, Chief Executive Officer

FROM: Tom Franklin, Chief Operating Officer

SUBJECT: Ridership Report - October 2018

Summary: System-wide ridership this October increased 7.1% versus October 2017.

Ridership Oct-17 Oct-18 Change Fixed Route 783,755 841,929 7.4% Dial-A-Ride 37,057 37,259 0.5% Total System 820,812 879,188 7.1%

Factors to consider when comparing to a year ago: • Calendar: o October 2018 had one more weekday and one fewer Sunday than October 2017. • Weather: o There was one day with measurable rain in October 2018 versus none in October 2017 o There were no days over 100° in October 2018 versus one in October 2017. • Schedule: o Revenue service hours this October were 4.0% higher than last October. • Other o The average gasoline price for October 2018 was $3.76 versus $3.00 in October 2017.

Recommendation: Receive and file.

Item 7B 25 Riverside Transit Agency Month-End Ridership Summary October 2018 Entire System

Performance Indicators Monthly & Fiscal Year Variances Total Passengers Passengers/ Passengers/ Fiscal Year to date Oct '18 vs. Oct '17 Revenue Hour Revenue Mile 2019 vs. 2018 1

Fixed Routes** >>> 841,929 14.27 0.97 7.4% 3.7%

Dial-a-Ride (Regular & Taxi & Lifeline)* >>> 37,259 2.10 0.13 0.5% -2.0%

Entire System Total >>> 879,188 11.46 0.76 7.1% 3.4%

Fixed Routes (Excluding CommuterLinks) >>> 802,706 15.15 1.11 6.1% 2.4%

CommuterLink Routes >>> 39,223 6.53 0.27 44.8% 38.4%

Dial-A-Ride (Regular) Total >>> 35,589 2.12 0.13 -1.0% -2.4%

Taxi & Lifeline (Overflow) Total >>> 1,670 1.77 0.07 52.9% 11.9%

Entire System >>> 879,188 11.46 0.76 7.1% 3.4%

1 The FY-To-Date Variance is the difference between ridership from July 2018 to October 2018 versus July 2017 to October 2017 * The Dial-A-Ride routes serve exclusively seniors and persons with disabilities. ** Fixed route totals include Commuter link routes as summarized below

Item 7B 26 Riverside Transit Agency Month-End Ridership Summary October 2018 Fixed Routes (Directly Operated and Contracted)

Monthly & Fiscal Year Performance Indicators Total Variances Route # Area Served DO CO Passengers Passengers/ Passengers/ Oct '18 vs. Oct FY-To-Date Rev. Hour Rev. Mile '17 2019 vs .20181 001 Corona/ Downtown Riverside/ Magnolia/ UCR 190,605 190,605 - 28.55 2.52 2.7% -2.2% 101 Corona/Magnolia/Downtown Riverside/ UCR 18,689 18,689 - 11.78 0.86 - - 003 Eastvale/ Norco/ Corona 18,072 17,366 706 14.69 1.19 -3.1% -4.1% 008 Lake Elsinore 17,539 - 17,539 11.30 0.78 -13.9% -11.7% 009 Perris Station/ Lake Elsinore Outlet 6,086 - 6,086 8.63 0.47 010 Big Springs & Watkins to Galleria 16,063 16,063 - 13.31 1.18 2.9% 5.7% 011 Moreno Valley Mall/ March ARB 10,433 10,433 - 11.53 1.05 1.9% -5.0% 012 La Cadena & Stephens to Merced & Magnolia 18,970 18,970 - 13.84 1.19 -4.6% -7.6% 013 Hunter Park Metrolink/ Galleria at Tyler 20,891 20,891 - 15.32 1.31 1.3% -0.9% 014 Galleria at Tyler/ Indiana/ VA Hospital 18,541 18,541 - 15.24 1.18 2.9% -2.8% 015 Downtown Riverside/ Galleria at Tyler 48,072 48,072 - 18.10 1.63 8.8% 3.0% 016 Downtown Riverside/ Moreno Valley Mall 60,111 60,111 - 24.73 2.23 18.2% 8.6% 018 Sunnymead Ranch/ Moreno Valley RCC 13,949 13,949 - 15.33 1.23 1.1% -0.6% 019 Moreno Valley Mall/ Perris 74,647 74,265 382 16.41 1.33 24.3% 17.5% 020 Magnolia Center/ Moreno Valley RCC 28,346 28,346 - 14.26 0.95 -9.4% -8.0% 021 Country Village/ Galleria at Tyler 10,515 10,515 - 12.21 0.93 3.7% 1.4% 022 Downtown Riverside/ Perris/ Lake Elsinore 25,791 25,791 - 14.65 0.96 -18.2% -10.7% 023 Temecula/ Murrieta/ Wildomar 9,194 - 9,194 7.48 0.53 1.9% 2.6% 024 Pechanga Resort/ Temecula 5,816 - 5,816 6.74 0.49 -1.2% -0.8% 026 Moreno Valley 3,108 - 3,108 4.31 0.31 23.3% 15.2% 027 Galleria at Tyler/ Hemet Valley Mall 46,791 46,791 - 14.39 0.74 6.1% 2.4% 029 Downtown Riverside/ Hamner & Limonite 14,233 14,233 - 10.37 0.85 17.6% 12.4% 030 Perris 6,531 - 6,531 9.17 0.76 6.8% 5.7% 031 Banning/ Beaumont/ San Jacinto/ Hemet 14,578 - 14,578 8.53 0.43 10.1% -0.6%

Item 7B 27 Riverside Transit Agency Month-End Ridership Summary October 2018 Fixed Routes (Directly Operated and Contracted)

Monthly & Fiscal Year Performance Indicators Total Variances Route # Area Served DO CO Passengers Passengers/ Passengers/ Oct '18 vs. Oct FY-To-Date Rev. Hour Rev. Mile '17 2019 vs. 20181 032 Hemet/ San Jacinto 10,590 - 10,590 12.35 1.13 -7.2% -7.8% 033 Hemet/ East Hemet 3,969 - 3,969 7.05 0.56 2.6% -11.2% 040 Lake Elsinore/ Quail Valley/ Sun City 1,708 - 1,708 5.36 0.28 1.5% 7.4% 041 Mead Valley/ Perris/ Moreno Valley/ RCRMC 8,739 3,156 5,583 12.95 0.80 12.2% 10.5% 042 San Jacinto/ Soboba Casino/ Hemet 4,420 - 4,420 9.16 0.61 13.0% -1.9% 049 Country Village/ Downtown Riverside 22,078 22,078 - 16.31 1.51 5.2% 8.3% 050 Downtown Riverside Jury Trolley 102 - 102 0.49 0.07 -69.5% -22.9% 051 UCR Crest Cruiser 4,364 - 4,364 17.32 1.58 -0.4% -0.5% 052 Hunter Park Metrolink/ UCR 8,062 - 8,062 23.31 3.05 50.4% 41.9% 054 Downtown Riverside 317 - 317 2.32 0.53 104.5% -5.1% 055 Temecula Trolley - Promenade Mall to Harveston 1,879 - 1,879 13.50 1.03 -22.1% -21.4% 061 S. Perris Metrolink - Sun City/ Menifee/ Temecula 11,397 - 11,397 6.59 0.37 25.8% 21.3% 074 San Jacinto/ Hemet/ Menifee/ Sun City/ Perris 18,120 - 18,120 9.69 0.54 -2.6% -6.5% 079 Hemet/ Winchester/ French Valley/ Temecula 9,390 - 9,390 7.68 0.44 9.7% 0.5% 200 SB/Riverside/Orange Count 17,805 17,805 - 7.79 0.34 202 Murrieta/ Temecula/ Oceanside 934 - 934 2.68 0.10 -12.2% -13.4% 204 Riverside/ Country Village/ Ontario/ Montclair 4,758 4,758 - 8.42 0.39 13.2% 1.8% 205 Temecula/Riverside/Orange County 2,444 2,444 - 6.17 0.25 206 Corona/ Lake Elsinore/ Murrieta/ Temecula 3,032 3,032 - 6.97 0.27 -28.9% -31.5% 208 Temecula/ Murrieta/ Sun City/ Perris/ Mo Val/ Riverside 3,549 1,585 1,964 5.33 0.22 -1.3% -1.6% 210 Riverside to Palm Desert 555 282 273 5.30 0.29 -0.2% -13.1% 212 Hemet/ San Jacinto/ Downtown Riverside 2,659 - 2,659 5.34 0.25 -0.3% 0.1% 217 San Jacinto/ Hemet/ Temecula/ Escondido 3,487 588 2,899 4.90 0.17 -1.4% -1.3% Fixed Route Total >>>> 841,929 689,359 152,570 14.27 0.97 7.4% 3.7%

1 The FY-To-Date Variance is the difference between ridership from July 2018 to October 2018 versus July 2017 to October 2017

Item 7B 28 Riverside Transit Agency Month-End Ridership Summary October 2018 Dial-A-Ride Services

Performance Indicators Monthly & Fiscal Year Variances Total Passengers Passengers/ Passengers/ FY-To-Date Oct '18 vs. Oct '17 Revenue Hour Revenue Mile 2019 vs. 2018 1 Riverside/San Bernardino 801 23,973 2.11 0.13 0.0% -2.6% Murrieta/Temecula/Menifee 802 7,419 1.87 0.11 3.2% 0.2% Hemet/San Jacinto 803 5,789 2.46 0.15 -0.7% -2.1% Rural Areas 804 78 1.46 0.06 25.8% -4.0%

Dial-A-Ride (Seniors & ADA) Total >>>> 37,259 2.10 0.13 0.5% -2.0%

1 The FY-To-Date Variance is the difference between ridership from July 2018 to October 2018 versus July 2017 to October 2017

Item 7B 29 Riverside Transit Agency Month-End Ridership Summary October 2018 CommuterLink Routes

Performance Indicators Monthly & Fiscal Year Variances Total Route Passengers Passengers/ Passengers/ FY-To-Date Oct '18 vs. Oct '17 Number Area Served Revenue Hour Revenue Mile 2019 vs. 2018 1 200 2 SB/Riverside/Orange County 17,805 7.79 0.34

202 Murrieta/ Temecula/ Oceanside 934 2.68 0.10 -12.2% -13.4%

204 Riverside/ Country Village/ Ontario/ Montclair 4,758 8.42 0.39 13.2% 1.8%

205 3 Temecula/Riverside/Orange County 2,444 6.17 0.25

206 Corona/ Lake Elsinore/ Murrieta/ Temecula 3,032 6.97 0.27 -28.9% -31.5%

208 Temecula/ Murrieta/ Sun City/ Perris/ Moreno Valley/ Riverside 3,549 5.33 0.22 -1.3% -1.6%

210 Banning/ Beaumont/ Moreno Valley/ Riverside 555 5.30 0.29 -0.2% -13.1%

212 Hemet/ San Jacinto/ Downtown Riverside 2,659 5.34 0.25 -0.3% 0.1%

217 San Jacinto/ Hemet/ Temecula/ Escondido 3,487 4.90 0.17 -1.4% -1.3%

Total Commuter Link Routes >>> 39,223 6.53 0.27 44.8% 38.4%

1 The FY-To-Date Variance is the difference between ridership from July 2018 to October 2018 versus July 2017 to October 2017 2 Route 200 began service on 1/15/2018 3 Route 205 began partial service on 1/15/2018 and full service on 1/29/2018

Item 7B 30 Riverside Transit Agency Month-End Ridership Summary October 2018

Selected Pass Programs

Monthly & Fiscal Year Variances Total Passengers Fiscal-Year-To-Date Oct '18 vs. Oct '17 1 Pass Program 2019 vs. 2018 RCC GO-PASS 96,944 13.2% 9.7%

UC-RIVERSIDE U-PASS 87,761 26.5% 18.1%

MT. SAN JACINTO COLLEGE GO-PASS 17,876 -4.8% -10.9%

CAL BAPTIST UNIVERSITY U-PASS 4,439 -13.8% -16.6%

LA SIERRA UNIVERSITY U-PASS 428 -39.5% -42.0%

U-PASS & GO-PASS COLLEGE PROGRAMS TOTAL 207,448 15.5% 8.5%

RIVERSIDE CITY EMPLOYEE PASS PROGRAM 1,676 41.9% 31.1%

1 The FY-To-Date Variance is the difference between ridership from July 2018 to October 2018 versus July 2017 to October 2017

Item 7B 31 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY 1825 Third Street Riverside, CA 92507

November 15, 2018

TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS

THRU: Larry Rubio, Chief Executive Officer

FROM: Tom Franklin, Chief Operating Officer

SUBJECT: On Time Performance - October 2018

Summary: On time performance system-wide in October 2018 was 89% vs. 90% in October 2017 and 88% in September 2018.

Recommendation:

Receive and file.

Please note: For the Contracted Operations Fleet, schedule adherence used to be checked manually by operations supervisors in the field at random time points and times of day, about 800 checks a month. The Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) installed in those buses now automatically records the actual time a bus passes every scheduled time point in the Ride Guide, over 50,000 checks a month. In March 2018, RTA began using ITS schedule adherence data for the Contracted Operations fleet. Over time, this improved process will allow RTA to perform more detailed analysis and make more precise schedule adjustments to increase the system’s on time performance.

Item 7C 32 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY 1825 Third Street Riverside, CA 92507

November 15, 2018

TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS

THRU: Larry Rubio, Chief Executive Officer

FROM: Jim Kneepkens, Director of Marketing

SUBJECT: Travel Training Report – October 2018

Summary: The attached report summarizes the Agency’s performance in the Travel Training Program for the month of October 2018 and for fiscal year-to-date FY2019. Highlights of this report are:

Item #1: 144 passenger trips generated on fixed route in the senior category; 144 trips year-to-date.

Item #2: 10,418 passenger trips generated on fixed route in the disabled category; 31,525 year-to-date.

Item #3: 10,562 total passenger trips generated on fixed route; 31,669 year-to-date.

Item #4: 153 unique persons served; 709 year-to-date.

Item #5: A total of $33,426 in expenses applied this month; $129,642 year-to-date.

Recommendation:

Receive and file.

Item 7D 33 Exhibit C-2 -- Quantitative Reporting Requirements

2018 Specialized Transit Program Call For Projects -- Western Riverside Measure A Fiscal Year 2018/19 MONTHLY REPORT

AGENCY: Riverside Transit Agency LEGEND: PROJECT NAME: "Freedom to Go" Travel Training Program FILL IN BLANK AUTO FILL

Information reported shall be for this project only. Year 1 Month Qtr 1 Month Qtr 2 Month Qtr 3 Month Qtr 4 FY 18/19 Goal Jul-18 Aug-18 Sep-18 Total Oct-18 Nov-18 Dec-18 Total Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Total Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Total YTD Total OPERATING DATA

1. Total One-Way Passenger Trips (report for this project only)

1a. Seniors 0 0 0 0 144 144 0 0 144

1b. Disabled 5,195 7,012 8,900 21,107 10,418 10,418 0 0 31,525

1c. Veterans (sub category of 1a and 1b) 1,042 1,070 876 2,988 939 939 0 0 3,927

Total Passenger Trips (sum of 1a and 1b only) 80,000 5,195 7,012 8,900 21,107 10,562 0 0 10,562 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31,669

2. Total Unique Persons Served per Period*

a) New 8 98 45 151 34 34 0 0 185

b) Continuing 86 320 135 498 119 119 0 0 524

c) Number (Cumulative/Unduplicated) 800 94 418 180 649 153 153 709 d) Of the above NEW (a), how many military service personnel or veterans were served? 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 OTHER OPERATING DATA

5. Number of bus passes distributed 93 408 143 644 113 113 0 0 757

5a. One-way trips supported by passes (GFI reported) 5,045 6,909 8,810 20,764 10,438 10,438 0 0 31,202

5b. Unique persons receiving bus passes (est.)* 92 401 141 598 112 112 644

7. Mobility Mgmt/Travel/Sensitivity Training Hours per Period 86.75 117.75 78.25 282.75 120.25 120.25 0.00 0.00 403.00

8. Mobility Mgmt/Travel/Sensitivity Training Contacts per Period 83 226 566 875 310 310 0 0 1,185 FINANCIAL DATA

9. Award - Measure A Subsidy $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

10. Award - LTF $ 127 $ - $ - $127 $ - $ - $ - $0 $ - $ - $ - $0 $ - $ - $ - $0 $127

11. Award - 5310 $ 32,125 $ 33,830 $ 30,134 $96,089 $ 33,426 $ - $ - $33,426 $ - $ - $ - $0 $ - $ - $ - $0 $129,515

12. Award - Other $ - $ - $ -

13. TOTAL REVENUE (sum of items 9 thru 12) $32,252 $33,830 $30,134 $96,216 $ 33,426 $ - $ - $33,426 $ - $ - $ - $0 $ - $ - $ - $0 $129,642

14. TOTAL OPERATING COST $ 32,252 $ 33,830 $ 30,134 $96,216 $ 33,426 $ - $ - $33,426 $ - $ - $ - $0 $ - $ - $ - $0 $129,642

15. Net Expenses (item 13 minus item 14) $ - $ - $ - $0 $ - $ - $ - $0 $ - $ - $ - $0 $ - $ - $ - $0 $0 Please provide any additional comments that you would like to make. For example, if your "farebox/donations" have increased significantly; and/or if ridership has increased or decreased, we like to know why. * Unique Persons tracked separately by Month, Quarter and Year PERFORMANCE MEASURES (formulas: do not enter data) 18. Meas A Subsidy per Passenger ------

Item 7D 34

RTA BOARD ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING Minutes November 7, 2018

1. CALL TO ORDER

Committee Chair Nancy Carroll called the Board Administration and Operations Committee meeting to order at 1:00 p.m., on November 7, 2018, in the RTA Board Room.

2. SELF-INTRODUCTIONS

Self-introductions of those in attendance took place.

Committee Members Attending

1. Nancy Carroll, City of Beaumont 2. Art Welch, City of Banning 3. Daryl Hickman, Lake Elsinore 4. Greg August, City of Menifee 5. David Marquez, City of Moreno Valley 6. Randon Lane, City of Murrieta 7. Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside 8. Alonso Ledezma, City of San Jacinto 9. Bridgette Moore, City of Wildomar 10. 1Jerry Sincich, County of Riverside, District I

Committee Members Absent

1. Tonya Burke, City of Perris

RTA Staff

1. Larry Rubio, Chief Executive Officer 2. Tammi Ford, Clerk of the Board of Directors 3. Tom Franklin, Chief Operating Officer 4. Craig Fajnor, Chief Financial Officer 5. Vince Rouzaud, Chief Procurement and Logistics Officer 6. Rohan Kuruppu, Director of Planning 7. Adam Chavez, Director of Maintenance 8. Jim Kneepkens, Director of Marketing 9. Rick Kaczerowski, Director of IT 10. Rick Majors, Director of Risk Management 11. Natalie Zaragoza, Director of Contracts 12. Eric Ustation, Government Affairs Manager 13. Brad Weaver, Media & Public Relations Manager

1Alternate for Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside, District I

Item 7E 35

14. Jackie Bronson, HR Manager 15. Luciano Rose, Operations Manager 16. Kimber Salter, Deputy Clerk of the Board 17. Sylvia Meadows, Marketing Coordinator 18. Joe Forgiarini, Planning and Scheduling Manager

Other Attendees

1. Sam Daly, Token Transit 2. Mark McCourt, Redhill Group 3. Judith McCourt, Redhill Group 4. Bridgette Lane, Murrieta Resident

3. PUBLIC COMMENTS – NON-AGENDA ITEMS

None.

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – OCTOBER 2, 2018 COMMITTEE MEETING

M/S/C (LANE/WELCH) approving the minutes of the October 2, 2018 Committee meeting.

The motion carried unanimously.

Director Bridgette Moore arrived to the meeting at 1:02 p.m.

5. CONSENT CALENDAR

M/S/C (MOORE/WELCH) approving the receipt and file of Item 5A – Personnel Report – September 2018.

M/S/C (MOORE/WELCH) approving the receipt and file of Item 5B – Transportation Center Monthly Report – September 2018.

The motion carried unanimously.

6. AUTHORIZATION TO TERMINATE AGREEMENT NO. 17-070 WITH ABSOLUTE INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AND AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 17- 070-A TO ALLIED UNIVERSAL FOR SECURITY GUARD SERVICES

M/S/C (MARQUEZ/LEDEZMA) approving and recommending this item to the full Board of Directors for their consideration as follows:

• Authorize staff to terminate Agreement No. 17-070 with Absolute International Security.

Item 7E 36

• Authorize staff to award Agreement No. 17-070-A to Allied Universal for security guard services for the base period with two, one-year options in an amount not-to-exceed $3,867,366.98 which includes a five-percent contingency of $193,368.35.

The motion carried unanimously.

7. AUTHORIZE A YOUTH HOLIDAY FARE OF 25 CENTS PER BOARDING FROM DECEMBER 21, 2018 THROUGH JANUARY 13, 2019

M/S/C (LANE/MARQUEZ) approving and recommending this item to the full Board of Directors for their consideration as follows:

• Authorize Agency staff to implement a youth holiday fare of 25 cents per boarding on all fixed-route buses from December 21, 2018 through January 13, 2019.

The motion carried unanimously.

8. ATTITUDE AND AWARENESS MARKET ASSESSMENT AND STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS STUDY FINAL REPORT

M/S/C (LANE/MOORE) approving and recommending this item to the full Board of Directors for their consideration as follows:

• Receive and file the Attitude and Awareness Market Assessment Study Final Report.

The motion carried unanimously.

9. AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 18-035 TO TOKEN TRANSIT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGENCY’S NEW MOBILE TICKETING APPLICATION (APP)

M/S/C (LANE/MELENDREZ) approving and recommending this item to the full Board of Directors for their consideration as follows:

• Authorize staff to award Agreement No. 18-035 to Token Transit for the development and implementation of the Agency’s mobile ticketing app for a total not-to-exceed amount of $597,838.50 for the three-year period.

The motion carried unanimously.

Item 7E 37

10. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS

Board member comments were made by Director Bridgette Moore, First Vice- Chairman Randon Lane, and Chairman Art Welch.

11. ANNOUNCEMENTS

Announcements were made by Mr. Larry Rubio.

12. NEXT MEETING

Wednesday, December 5, 2018, 1:00 p.m. Riverside Transit Agency Board Room 1825 Third Street Riverside, CA 92507

13. MEETING ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 2:06 p.m.

Item 7E 38

RTA BOARD BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING Minutes November 7, 2018

1. CALL TO ORDER

Committee Chair Berwin Hanna called the Board Budget and Finance Committee meeting to order at 2:18 p.m., on November 7, 2018, in the RTA Board Room.

2. SELF INTRODUCTIONS

Self-introductions of those in attendance took place.

Committee Members Attending 1. Berwin Hanna, City of Norco 2. Linda Molina, City of Calimesa 3. Dawn Haggerty, City of Canyon Lake 4. 1Ike Bootsma, County of Riverside, District II 5. 2Chuck Comerchero, County of Riverside, District III 6. 3Barry Busch, County of Riverside, District V

Committee Members Absent

1. Maryann Edwards, City of Temecula 2. Linda Krupa, City of Hemet 3. Anthony Kelly, Jr., City of Jurupa Valley 4. City of Corona

RTA Staff 1. Larry Rubio, Chief Executive Officer 2. Tammi Ford, Clerk of the Board of Directors 3. Tom Franklin, Chief Operating Officer 4. Craig Fajnor, Chief Financial Officer 5. Vince Rouzaud, Chief Procurement and Logistics Officer 6. Charlie Ramirez, Controller 7. Rohan Kuruppu, Director of Planning 8. Adam Chavez, Director of Maintenance 9. Jim Kneepkens, Director of Marketing 10. Rick Kaczerowski, Director of IT 11. Natalie Zaragoza, Director of Contracts 12. Rick Majors, Director of Risk Management 13. Eric Ustation, Government Affairs Manager 14. Brad Weaver, Media & Public Relations Manager 15. Kristin Warsinski, Grants Manager

1Alternate for John Tavaglione, County of Riverside, District II 2Alternate for Chuck Washington, County of Riverside, District III 3Alternate for Marion Ashley, County of Riverside, District V

Item 7F 39

16. Kimber Salter, Deputy Clerk of the Board

Other Attendees

1. Ryan Nielsen, Brown Armstrong

3. PUBLIC COMMENTS – NON-AGENDA ITEMS

None.

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – OCTOBER 2, 2018 COMMITTEE MEETING

M/S/C (HAGGERTY/BOOTSMA) approving the October 2, 2018 committee meeting minutes.

The motion carried unanimously.

5. CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS

Mr. Fajnor presented the cash flow projections which were received and filed.

6. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT

Mr. Fajnor presented the quarterly investment report which was received and filed.

7. QUARTERLY NATURAL GAS PROCUREMENT STATUS REPORT

Mr. Fajnor presented the quarterly natural gas procurement status report which was received and filed.

8. AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 18-039 TO TRILLIUM CNG FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF A COMPRESSED NATURAL GAS (CNG) COMPRESSOR AT THE AGENCY’S RIVERSIDE FACILITY

M/S/C (COMERCHERO/BOOTSMA) approving and recommending this item to the full Board of Directors for their consideration as follows:

• Authorize staff to award Agreement No. 18-039 to Trillium CNG for the purchase and installation of a CNG compressor at the Agency’s Riverside facility in the amount of $786,236 with a ten-percent contingency of $78,624 for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $864,860.

The motion carried unanimously.

Item 7F 40

9. FISCAL YEAR 2017/2018 (FY18) FINANCIAL AUDIT RESULTS

M/S/C (BOOTSMA/HAGGERTY) approving and recommending this item to the full Board of Directors for their consideration as follows:

• Accept the Riverside Transit Agency’s FY18 Audited Financial Statements, Single Audit Report, and SAS 114 Letter as final.

The motion carried unanimously.

10. BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS

Board member comments were made by Director Linda Molina, Committee Chair Berwin Hanna, Director Ike Bootsma and Director Dawn Haggerty.

11. ANNOUNCEMENTS

Announcements were made by Mr. Larry Rubio.

12. NEXT MEETING

Wednesday, December 5, 2018, 2:00 p.m. Riverside Transit Agency Board Room 1825 Third Street Riverside, CA 92507

13. MEETING ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 2:33 p.m.

Item 7F 41 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY 1825 Third Street Riverside, CA 92507

November 15, 2018

TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS

THRU: Larry Rubio, Chief Executive Officer

FROM: Craig Fajnor, Chief Financial Officer

SUBJECT: October FY19 Farebox Recovery Ratio (FRR) Performance and FYE19 FRR Projection

Summary: The Agency relies on a Transportation Development Act (TDA) funding subsidy in order to cover a significant portion of its annual operating expenses. This funding is predicated on compliance with TDA operating provisions and statutes. TDA Provision 99270 states that claimants shall meet or exceed a predetermined ratio of fare revenues to operating expenses. This is known as the Farebox Recovery Ratio (FRR).

Policies and legislation have been adopted that clarify and expand the definition of allowable parameters relative to the calculation of the FRR. A Farebox Recovery Policy adopted by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) expands allowable passenger fare revenues to include local funds and local support revenues. In addition, State Assembly Bill Number 508 (SB508) allows for the exclusion of cost increases beyond the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for fuel, power, insurance premiums and payments, and ADA complementary paratransit service.

The Agency’s FRR Target for FY19 is 16.72%. The Agency’s FY19 budgeted FRR is 22.57%. The Agency’s actual FRR through October is 28.30%, exceeding the target by 11.58%.

In addition, the table below reflects the Agency’s current FY19 year- end forecast for FRR. It is based on year-to-date actual revenues and expenses through October 2018 plus projections for the remainder of the fiscal year. A conservative approach to the revenues and expenses, including allowable inclusions and exclusions, has been used.

Item 7G 42 Farebox Revenues $ 11,052,010 Local Support Revenues: Measure A $ 5,633,457 Subtotal - Farebox Revenues 16,685,467

Other Local Support Revenues & Exemptions New Routes (Implement. year + 2 Year Exemption): - Interest Income on Investments 500,000 LCTOP used for operating 1,429,453 LCFS from CNG usage 600,000 RINs from CNG usage 950,000 Bus Shelter Advertising 15,000 Other Local Support Revenues 195,830 Subtotal - Other Local Revenue & Exemptions 3,690,283

Total Farebox Revenues, Local Support, & Exemptions $ 20,375,750

Operating Expenses (Excl. Depreciation & Amortization) $ 87,166,909

TDA/SB508 Expense Exemptions New Routes (Implement. year + 2 Year Exemption): - Fuel Exemption - Power Exemption Liability Insurance Exemption ADA Paratransit Exemption - Subtotal - TDA/SB508 Expense Exemptions -

Operating Expenses - Adjusted $ 87,166,909

Ratio 23.38%

Target 16.72%

The current projected FY19 Farebox Recovery Ratio forecast is 23.38 percent. The predetermined target ratio is 16.72 percent, resulting in a favorable variance of 6.66 percent.

Staff will continue to provide the Board with Farebox Recovery Ratio updates and compliance strategies as required.

Recommendation:

Receive and file.

Item 7G 43 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY 1825 Third Street Riverside, CA 92507

November 15, 2018

TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS

THRU: Larry Rubio, Chief Executive Officer

FROM: Eric Ustation, Government Affairs Manager

SUBJECT: Transportation NOW Update – October 2018

Summary: Transportation NOW (T-NOW) has six chapters: Greater Riverside, Hemet/San Jacinto Area, Moreno Valley/Perris, Northwest, San Gorgonio Pass and Southwest. Each chapter meets monthly at a location convenient to the membership. Attendance includes transit users, elected officials, transit advocates, community activists and Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) staff. This report summarizes the activities of each chapter for the month of October 2018. Detailed minutes are available on the Transportation NOW webpage.

Greater Riverside Chapter The chapter was informed that the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Local Coalition Grant to produce an educational video on the benefits of Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) funding for Riverside County was completed and being promoted on social media. Chapter members agreed to help promote the video. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) staff discussed various programs and grant funding opportunities the agency has available for both cities and non-profits.

Hemet/San Jacinto Area Chapter Director Linda Krupa gave the chapter an update on the status of the City of Hemet’s interactions with Caltrans over the Florida Avenue Median Improvement Project. City officials are working with Sacramento to try and alter the project to better fit the community’s needs. RTA staff gave an update on the Hemet Mobility Hub and noted that the project is scheduled to be presented to the Hemet City Council in December.

Moreno Valley/Perris Chapter The chapter was informed that the SB 1 education video was completed and was being promoted on social media outlets. Chapter members were encouraged to like and share the video on their own networks. Moreno Valley staff noted the City is looking to

Item 7H 44 add the video to their public access channel. The City of Moreno Valley discussed its grant application to create a Pedestrian Master Plan to complement its recently completed Bicycle Master Plan.

Northwest Chapter The chapter discussed the Local Coalition Grant that was awarded to RTA on behalf of T-NOW to produce an educational video on the benefits of SB 1 funding for Riverside County. Chapter members were asked to help share the video. The chapter began planning its annual Santa Bus Ride. Initial plans have the group riding Route 29 from Eastvale to Downtown Riverside on December 11 for the Festival of Lights.

San Gorgonio Pass Area Chapter The chapter was informed that the SB 1 education video was completed and being promoted on social media outlets. Beaumont Pass Transit noted that Commuter Route 125 is now in service, but schedules will be adjusted in late October to account for increased freeway congestion. Director Art Welch noted that Banning received a trolley from RTA and will use it to service the downtown area. The chapter learned that the Calimesa Chamber of Commerce has a transportation information center in its offices. They also prepare welcome bags for new businesses and residents and always include transit information.

Southwest Chapter RTA staff gave an update on the video produced to educate residents on SB 1 benefits in Riverside County. Chapter members were asked to continue sharing the video on social media. Caltrans staff noted that they are currently offering a Sustainable Communities Planning Grant available to cities and transit agencies. The chapter will plan a transit rider appreciation event once the Promenade Temecula upgrades are complete.

Recommendation:

Receive and file.

Item 7H 45 Item 7I 46 Item 7I 47 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY 1825 Third Street Riverside, CA 92507

November 15, 2018

TO: BOARD ADMINSTRATION AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE

THRU: Larry Rubio, Chief Executive Officer

FROM: Jim Kneepkens, Director of Marketing Craig Fajnor, Chief Financial Officer

SUBJECT: Authorize a Youth Holiday Fare of 25 Cents per Boarding from December 21, 2017 through January 13, 2018

Summary: Historically, Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) bus ridership drops during the winter holiday season. This drop begins in late December and continues through the first week of January as students stop riding the bus to get to local schools and colleges, commuters take vacations and most school districts take a three- week winter recess. During winter break, RTA ridership drops about 30 percent but quickly increases about 30 percent in the three weeks following the break.

At the November 17, 2017 Board meeting, the RTA Board of Directors authorized a youth holiday fare of 25 cents per boarding from December 15, 2016 through January 7, 2017 for students in grades 1-12. There were 21,360 boardings last holiday utilizing the youth fare promotion.

With ridership expected to dip again this holiday season, staff believes this is an ideal time to promote public transportation and increase ridership during the holiday break by again offering 25- cent rides during the holiday break. The promotion would run from December 21, 2018 through January 13, 2019. The 25-cent-per- boarding fare would be offered on any fixed-route bus including CommuterLink express buses. To qualify for the reduced fare, students would be required to show a school-issued student ID card from the current school year, an RTA Youth ID card, a California driver’s license or state ID showing the student is 18 years old or younger.

Item 7J 48 The 25-cent promotional youth holiday fare presents an opportunity for significant savings to young customers. The regular youth fare on local bus service is $1.50 per boarding, $4 for a 1-day pass and $35 for a 30-day pass. Youth CommuterLink fares are $3 per boarding, $7 for a 1-day pass and $75 for a 30-day pass. The proposed cash discount provides immediate savings and instant access to the bus. And, rather than spending money on bus fare, students can have more cash in their pockets at their destinations.

The promotional fare is designed to raise awareness and remind students and parents that public transportation is an available option during the winter holiday break. During the promotion, staff expects a twelve percent increase in youth ridership because of the promotional fare. Beyond the promotion, the goal is that new riders would continue to ride and current riders would become more frequent riders.

Marketing of the promotional fare will target both students and their parents, with the latter often the decision-makers on how their children get around during the holiday break. Promotional materials will promote popular destinations accessible by bus --- the mall, the movies, the beach, or any place where they can hang out with friends --- all without bothering mom or dad for a ride. Marketing materials will also promote some of the benefits of riding the bus --- convenience, safety, reducing pollution, and time and money saved by the parents.

The promotional fare will be advertised on our website, social media, through email alerts, on-board brochures, rider alerts, and mailings to the schools and other local partners.

When the promotion ends, staff will analyze ridership to determine if the promotion had any immediate success or created any potential long-term ridership.

Fiscal Impact:

Although staff estimates youth ridership will increase twelve percent during this period as a result of the promotion, a reduction in farebox revenue of $13,960 is expected due to the lower fare. The result will be a reduction of the budgeted farebox recovery ratio of .01% - the same as last year.

Item 7J 49 Committee Recommendation

This item was discussed at the Board Administration and Operations Committee meeting of November 7, 2018. The Committee members unanimously approved and recommended this item to the full Board of Directors for their consideration.

Recommendation:

Authorize Agency staff to implement a youth holiday fare of 25 cents per boarding on all fixed-route buses from December 21, 2018 through January 13, 2019.

Item 7J 50 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY 1825 Third Street Riverside, CA 92507

November 15, 2018

TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS

THRU: Larry Rubio, Chief Executive Officer

FROM: Vince Rouzaud, Chief Procurement and Logistics Officer

SUBJECT: Authorization to Award Agreement No. 18-039 to Trillium CNG for the Purchase and Installation of a Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Compressor at the Agency’s Riverside Facility

Summary: Included in the Agency’s capital budget are several capital improvement projects for both the Riverside and Hemet facilities. One of the approved projects is the purchase and installation of a new CNG compressor for its fueling station in Riverside. When the station was originally built in 2005, it was designed to accommodate future expansion of the bus fleet by including the infrastructure required to add a third CNG compressor.

Over the years, service expansion has increased the Agency’s fleet of 40- foot buses from 94 to 145. As a result, the equipment’s nightly run times have lengthened by approximately 50-percent triggering the need to expand the station’s capabilities to meet both current demand as well as accommodate future expansion.

On August 28, 2018, staff issued Invitation for Bid (IFB) No. 18-039. The procurement was publicly advertised in a newspaper of general circulation and a notice was posted on the Agency’s website. In addition, the Agency sent notices of the contracting opportunity to the Chambers of Commerce of those cities that are members of the Joint Powers Agreement.

Since this is a public works project which is subject to California’s Prevailing Wage Laws, the Agency is required to restrict its bidders list and subsequent contract award to only those contractors and subcontractors registered with the State of California’s Department of Industrial Relations.

On October 2, 2018, the Agency received bids from the following two vendors:

Item 7K 51 Firm Name Bid Amount Trillium CNG Houston, TX $786,236.00 EFS West, Inc. Valencia, CA $973,472.00

Staff reviewed the submittal received from Trillium CNG to ensure compliance with the requirements of the IFB. Based on a thorough review, staff recommends awarding a contract to Trillium CNG, the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.

In addition to the base bid amount, staff is also recommending the contract include a ten-percent contingency of $78,624 which would be utilized for any additional upgrades or improvements that may become necessary during the installation.

Fiscal Impact:

Sufficient funds to cover this request are included in the Agency’s FY19 capital budget in the form of Proposition 1B Security funds.

Funding Source

Prop. 1B Other Total

$ 786,236.00 $ --- $ 786,236.00 $ 78,624.00* $ 864.860.00 * Contingency

Committee Recommendation:

This item was discussed at the Board Budget and Finance Committee meeting on November 7, 2018. The Committee members unanimously approved and recommended this item to the full Board of Directors for their consideration.

Recommendation:

Authorize staff to award Agreement No. 18-039 to Trillium CNG for the purchase and installation of a CNG compressor at the Agency’s Riverside facility in the amount of $786,236 with a ten-percent contingency of $78,624 for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $864,860.

Item 7K 52 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY 1825 Third Street Riverside, CA 92507

November 15, 2018

TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS

THRU: Larry Rubio, Chief Executive Officer

FROM: Vince Rouzaud, Chief Procurement and Logistics Officer

SUBJECT: Authorization to Terminate Agreement No. 17-070 with Absolute International Security and Award Agreement No. 17-070-A to Allied Universal for Security Guard Services

Summary: In March 2018, after a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) process, the Agency awarded Agreement No. 17-070 to Absolute International Security (AIS) to provide security guard services at the Corona Transit Center, Hemet and Riverside operations facilities, as well as the Vine St. layover location in Riverside directly across from the Riverside Metrolink station. Security guard services are needed to secure Agency property and for the safety and protection of both employees and the riding public.

The three-year agreement with AIS became effective on July 1, 2018. The agreement also included two, one-year option periods. Shortly after AIS took over this contract the Agency began to experience performance issues that violated the terms of the agreement. The following is a list of violations:

Incident Date Contract Violation July 11 Guard asleep in vehicle July 30 Guard not standing proper watch August 7 Guard on personal cell phone August 31 Guard boarded Metrolink train

The August 31 incident was particularly alarming as the guard abandoned his post, walked across the street to the Metrolink station and boarded an out-of-service train. The guard then proceeded to blow the train’s horn causing confusion among Metrolink passengers and employees. The guard was eventually detained by Metrolink security.

To address the above violations, the Agency’s safety and security manager worked closely with AIS to remedy these issues and to ensure that the services were performed as outlined in our agreement. Despite these efforts, the situation did not improve. On September 7, staff met with representatives from AIS to discuss the violations noted above as well as voice their general dissatisfaction with AIS’ performance. AIS acknowledged the concerns and

Item 7L 53 its CEO committed to immediately turning their performance around by implementing an ‘action plan’ with improved hiring/screening procedures for new employees, increased training of its officers, post order clarification and increased quality assurance checks of its officers by management. Despite the action plan, the Agency continued to observe violations as noted below:

Contract Violations After September 7 Meeting

Incident Date Contract Violation September 15 Mobile guard not on duty September 17 Guard not standing proper watch September 19 Mobile guard suspected of smoking marijuana September 24 Guard sitting in personal vehicle

As is evident from the above, their action plan has not resulted in material improvements and in fact, by all accounts, the situation has worsened. Staff, therefore, is recommending the Agency terminate its agreement with AIS and enter into an agreement with Allied Universal, the second highest ranked vendor during the RFP procurement process. Allied Universal has committed to honoring the pricing they submitted during the original procurement.

The below table is a cost comparison between AIS and Allied Universal for the balance of this fiscal year (Dec. 16 - June 30), for years 2 and 3 of the base period and the two, one-year options.

Absolute Allied Universal Contract Years International Security Services Security Remainder of Year 1 $406,421.35 $392,456.12 Year 2 $768,048.48 $793,915.02 Year 3 $806,577.12 $838,412.80 Year 4 (Opt Yr 1) $860,419.52 $893,665.28 Year 5 (Opt Yr 2) $887,778.72 $948,917.76 GRAND TOTAL $3,729,245.19 $3,867,366.98

If approved by the Board, staff is recommending the new agreement with Allied Universal become effective 30-days after issuance of the Notice of Termination to AIS. The transition of the Agency’s security services to Allied will result in a new contract with a total amount of $3,867,366.98. As detailed above, the remainder of the first-year costs have been prorated assuming the Board approves the termination and a tentative cutover date of December 16.

Consistent with the previous Board action, this agreement will also include a five-percent contingency of $193,368.35 over the potential four and one-half

Item 7L 54 year term to address unanticipated and/or additional security needs as situations may require.

Fiscal Impact:

Transitioning these services from AIS to Allied Universal will result in an increase in the contract value of $138,121.79 over the potential four and one- half year term. Sufficient funding for security guard services has been included in the Agency’s FY19 operating budget. Funding for these services beyond the current fiscal year will be included in future fiscal year budget requests.

Committee Recommendation:

This item was discussed at the Board Administration and Operations Committee meeting on November 7, 2018. The Committee members unanimously approved and recommended this item to the full Board of Directors for their consideration.

Recommendation:

Authorize staff to terminate Agreement No. 17-070 with Absolute International Security.

Authorize staff to award Agreement No. 17-070-A to Allied Universal for security guard services for the base period with two, one-year options in an amount not-to-exceed $3,867,366.98 with a five-percent contingency of $193,368.35 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $4,060,735.33.

Item 7L 55 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY 1825 Third Street Riverside, CA 92507

November 15, 2018

TO: BOARD ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATIONS COMMITTEE

THRU: Larry Rubio, Chief Executive Officer

FROM: Jim Kneepkens, Director of Marketing

SUBJECT: Attitude and Awareness Market Assessment and Strategic Directions Study Final Report

Summary: On February 22, 2018, the Board of Directors authorized award of an agreement to Redhill Group, Inc. for an Attitude and Awareness Market Assessment Study. The Agency commissioned the study to gain a greater understanding of our market presence and strength as a service brand. The study evaluated the Agency’s brand identity and corporate image and identified the specific position that our services have in the minds of both customers and non- customers. The study also evaluated how our services are perceived versus the competitors and the level of awareness that the public has of our programs and service offerings. RTA seeks to better understand factors that contributed to the ridership declines through May 2018 as they relate to current and potential customers, particularly external factors including economic growth, increase in the prevalence of Uber and Lyft, changes in car ownership and low gas prices.

To better understand key motivations and drivers of transit use, RTA solicited feedback from its stakeholders using a two-pronged approach. An onboard survey was conducted with 2,123 current transit customers between April 24 and May 12, 2018 to determine their satisfaction levels with RTA services and to identify how RTA can encourage them to increase their use of RTA services and retain them as loyal customers. Feedback was also sought from 1,568 non-riders, some whom are previous riders, who live in the RTA service area to determine how they currently travel, their level of interest in using public transit for at least some of their trips, and to determine what would motivate them to use public transit.

The final report attached presents key findings from the surveys including:

Item 8 56

• Changes in the current customer profile since the 2013-2014 Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) where questions from both studies allow comparisons • Changes in customer travel patterns compared to a year ago • Current riders’ intent to ride RTA one year from now • Factors that would encourage individuals to ride more often • Overall satisfaction and satisfaction with key service attributes • Potential customer awareness of RTA • Potential customer profiles

Key Findings – Current Customers

Customer Demographics A growing number of RTA’s customers are transit dependent with 83 percent not having a vehicle available for their use, up from 63 percent in 2013. Most customers do not have a vehicle available for their use and more than half do not have a driver’s license. Thirty percent have no other means of transportation.

Students and persons who are employed comprise most of the ridership base. Forty-eight percent of customers identify as students: thirty percent are students from two-year or four-year colleges and universities, ten percent attend high school and middle school, and eight percent attend other institutions or did not specify. Fifty-three percent of customers say they are employed full-time or part-time, which is down from 70 percent in 2013.

Half of RTA customers ride the bus at least five days a week which is comparable to 2013. About 51 percent have been riding for two years or less which has remained constant for the past five years.

Twenty percent of riders say they have a disability. The proportion of individuals with a disability increases with age from five percent for those under 20, to 52 percent for people who are 60 and over.

Over the past five years, the proportion of individuals who identify themselves as Latino or Hispanic has increased from 37 percent to 41 percent compared to 49 percent for all Riverside County. It follows that 46 percent speak a language other than English at home and most, 81 percent, speak Spanish.

The vast majority of RTA customers live in households with annual incomes of less than $50,000. More than two-thirds of customers (70 percent up from 63 percent in 2013) live in households with

Item 8 57 annual household incomes of less than $25,000 compared to 19 percent of Riverside County residents.

Trip Purpose and Frequency School and work remain the top reasons customers ride the bus. However, the proportion of school trips has dropped by seven points since 2013. Traveling to school or work are the most common reasons customers use the bus. Personal errands, social recreational related trips, shopping and medical trips are collectively almost a third of all trips.

Most customers say they are riding with the same frequency that they were a year ago which suggests that declines we saw in 2017 ridership is from persons who have stopped riding the bus rather than from persons who are using it less frequently. However, more than one-third say they plan to use the bus less a year from now. Individuals who identify as students are more likely to say they will ride less one year from now compared to non-students. This makes sense with generally 25 percent of students graduating each year. The top three reasons customers cite for planning to use the bus less are: • The expectation of having a car (50 percent) • Obtaining a driver’s license (17 percent) • The prospect of having more money (15 percent) allowing other choices

Customer Satisfaction RTA has a high level of overall customer satisfaction with riders awarding the Agency a 4.13 on the five-point scale. Three quarters of riders give a satisfaction rating of “4” or above and just five percent are not satisfied.

Rider satisfaction is highest with the Ride Guide, coach operator courtesy, and the use of technology such as iAlerts, Wi-Fi and BusWatch. Customer satisfaction is lowest with the time waiting for the bus, hours of service and the cost of a monthly pass.

Almost three-quarters of RTA riders are likely to recommend RTA service to a friend or colleague. Non-students are more likely to say they would recommend RTA than students. The higher the overall rider satisfaction of the rider, the more likely they are to recommend RTA.

Changes in Level of Customer Use Of those riding the bus, just seven percent say they are riding less than they were a year ago. Fifty-one percent are riding more, and

Item 8 58 41 percent cite no change in use. Again, this suggests that the majority of the ridership decline is from individuals who are leaving the system rather than those who are riding less.

The top three reasons cited for riding less frequently are traveling less (27 percent), having a car (20 percent) and changes in job or home locations (19 percent). Service related factors mentioned for riding less include: destination not served by transit service, buses not operating at times needed, and excessive trip times (13 percent).

One year from now, half of RTA customers expect to be riding with the same frequency as they did in May 2018 and twelve percent expect to be riding more often. However, more than one-third say they will be riding less.

Key Findings – Potential Customers

Awareness and Community Impact RTA’s awareness level is high among the general public at 80 percent unaided awareness, and 89 percent total awareness which combines those who identified RTA without prompting as well as those who were asked directly if they had heard of RTA.

Awareness of RTA’s specialized services is lower at 28 percent for RapidLink and 36 percent for CommuterLink. Dial-A-Ride is the most recognized RTA specialty service with 43 percent saying they have heard of it but are not familiar with it, 21 percent knowing how it works, and six percent saying they have used it at some point. Thirty percent have never heard of Dial-A-Ride.

Respondents were asked to rate their agreement about RTA’s impact on the community using a five-point scale where 1 equates to “Strongly Disagree” and 5 equates to “Strongly Agree.” “Public transit is important to the community” received the strongest level of agreement with an average score of 4.19.

Two other statements received significantly lower levels of agreement, with “Public transit is an important contributor to achieving environmental goals in the community” receiving an average agreement score of 3.89, and “RTA provides a viable alternative to the private automobile” receiving the lowest average score of 3.75. It is likely that the perceived environmental average of transit compared to driving alone is lessening as the availability of high MPG and electric vehicles continues to increase.

Item 8 59 How Respondents Travel Nine out of ten residents travel either by driving alone (81 percent), or by carpooling or vanpooling (nine percent). Even though all potential customers use RTA less than once a week or not at all, four percent say some bus is their primary travel mode when they do go somewhere, and three percent say they use a transportation network company (TNC) like Lyft or Uber. Two percent walk or bicycle and one percent travel by train.

Driving alone increases with both age and income starting at 53 percent for those under 20 and increasing steadily to 85 percent for those 40 or older. For those with an income below $7,500, half drive alone, but this grows to 90 percent for those with an income of $75,000 or higher. Finally, Caucasians are more likely than Hispanics to drive alone.

Use of TNCs is common, but infrequent. Almost half of potential customers have used Uber or Lyft, but only nine percent use a TNC at least once a week. Seventeen percent say they ride a few times per month, and 74 percent say they ride less than once a month. Over two-thirds of respondents say their use of TNCs has no impact on riding RTA buses. About one quarter (24 percent) say it reduces ridership and six percent say it increases ridership.

Former RTA Customers Interestingly, three-quarters of previous and infrequent riders would consider riding again or more, respectively. Even among those who have never used RTA, 42 percent say they would consider riding.

Cars are the dominant reason for loss of previous riders with almost half saying that they bought a car to replace their trip on RTA and another third saying they switched to a car that they already had. Together this accounts for 80 percent of all lost riders. The primary reasons for switching to driving alone are privacy and comfort of driving alone, and travel by bus taking too long.

Barriers to Use The two largest barriers to transit use are the privacy and comfort of private cars, and travel by bus taking too long. Other factors, whether real or perceived, include stops not being close enough to customers’ homes and destinations, and buses not going where they need to go, which is essentially the same thing. Less- mentioned factors include customers not feeling safe, undesirable behavior and hygiene of others, buses not being available when needed, and too many transfers.

Item 8 60 Next Steps

The important information obtained from the study is being used by staff to gain an understanding as to how each population segment makes their travel decisions. The information identifies opportunities and barriers to increase ridership and factors that would encourage potential customers to use RTA. From here, staff will develop strategies that can be implemented to encourage additional transit ridership.

There are many opportunities to further advance the Agency’s role as a transportation option for everyone in its service area. Strategies will focus on retaining current riders as valued customers and attracting new customers to ride the service at least once per week. Half of current riders already use the service at least five days a week and so the focus will be to retain them as current customers and maintain their continued use of the system regardless of changing life circumstances such as job changes or new access to a car.

The majority of non-riders have never used RTA services but have a favorable perception of the Agency. Those potential customers are likely not using RTA services because they perceive that it does not add enough benefit to their travel or that the service doesn’t meet their needs. This could be based on factual information but possibly on incorrect assumptions. This will result in staff programs, recommendations and future strategies that may be helpful in enhancing the RTA brand, customer experience and satisfaction, access to the RTA transit system, and ultimately increasing ridership.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact. This item was included in the Agency’s FY18 operating budget in the form of Western Riverside Council of Governments’ (WRCOG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) funds, which covered the entire cost of the project.

Committee Recommendation

This item was discussed at the Board Administration and Operations Committee meeting of November 7, 2018. The Committee members unanimously approved and recommended this item to the full Board of Directors for their consideration.

Item 8 61 Recommendation:

Receive and file the Attitude and Awareness Market Assessment Study Final Report.

Item 8 62 Item 8 63 - THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -

Item 8 64 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Overview ...... 1 Project Background ...... 1 Report Organization ...... 1 Agency Overview ...... 3 Changes in Market Conditions ...... 4 Chapter 2: Executive Summary ...... 7 Key Findings ...... 7 Current RTA Customer ...... 7 Transit Dependency...... 7 Customer Profile ...... 7 Trip Purpose ...... 8 Riding Frequency ...... 8 Customer Satisfaction ...... 8 Encouraging More Frequent Use ...... 9 Potential Customer...... 9 Awareness ...... 9 RTA’s Impact on the Community ...... 9 TNC Use ...... 10 Former RTA Customers ...... 10 Willingness to Consider RTA ...... 10 Growing the Customer Base ...... 10 Strategies to Retain Existing and Attract New Customers ...... 10 Chapter 3: Onboard Customer Survey Detailed Findings ...... 13 Section Organization ...... 13 Ridership Characteristics ...... 14 Length of Use ...... 14 Frequency of Use ...... 16 Trip Purpose ...... 17 Number of Buses ...... 20 Routes Most Frequently Used ...... 21 Geographic Density of Home Locations ...... 21

i Item 8 65 Use Changes & Competition...... 24 Transit Dependency...... 24 Trip Frequency Compared to Last Year ...... 27 Future Use: Anticipated Trip Frequency ...... 33 Top 10 Reasons for Infrequent Ridership ...... 37 Satisfaction ...... 39 Satisfaction Attributes ...... 39 Ranked Satisfaction Attributes ...... 40 Likelihood to Recommend RTA ...... 44 Factors that Would Encourage Riding Frequency ...... 45 The Gap: Service Satisfaction and Ridership Motivation Factors ...... 45 I Would Ride More If… ...... 48 Fare Media & Transit Information ...... 53 Category of Fare ...... 53 Type of Pass/Ticket ...... 54 Transit Information Tools ...... 57 Smartphone Ownership ...... 59 Demographics ...... 60 Driver’s License ...... 60 Persons with Disabilities ...... 61 Employment Status ...... 63 Student Status ...... 64 Age ...... 67 Ethnicity ...... 69 Language ...... 70 Language Proficiency ...... 72 Gender...... 72 Household Income ...... 73 Chapter 4: Potential Customer Detailed Findings ...... 75 Potential Customer Characteristics ...... 75 RTA Use ...... 75 Awareness of RTA ...... 77 Service & Program Awareness ...... 78

ii Item 8 66 Length of Use ...... 81 Reason for Trying RTA ...... 82 RTA Trip Types of Previous and Infrequent Customers ...... 83 Trip Purpose of Potential Customers ...... 84 Potential Transit Changes & Competition ...... 85 Transportation Alternatives ...... 85 RTA Use in Past Year ...... 86 Travel Minutes if by Bus ...... 87 Consider Riding More/Again/Start ...... 88 Vehicles and TNCs ...... 91 Physical Boundaries ...... 93 Service Enhancement Trade-Off Analysis ...... 96 RTA’s Impact on the Community ...... 97 Satisfaction ...... 98 Demographics ...... 100 Driver’s License ...... 100 Persons with a Disability ...... 100 Employment ...... 101 Student Status ...... 101 Age ...... 102 Ethnicity ...... 102 Gender...... 103 Household Income ...... 103 Chapter 5: Strategies ...... 105 Chapter 6: Methodology ...... 107 Onboard Survey Methodology ...... 107 Sampling Plan ...... 107 Survey Instrument ...... 109 Conduct of Survey ...... 109 Participation Rates ...... 110 Weighting ...... 110 Potential Customer Survey Methodology ...... 111 Sampling Plan ...... 111

iii Item 8 67 Survey Instrument ...... 111 Conduct of Survey ...... 111 Participation Rates ...... 111 Weighting ...... 111 Appendix ...... 113 Onboard Questionnaire ...... 113 Online Questionnaire ...... 118

iv Item 8 68 Table of Figures Figure 1: Jurisdictional Boundaries & Urbanized Regions ...... 3 Figure 2: Production Share and Adjusted Fuel Economy by Vehicle Type for MY 1975-2017 ...... 5 Figure 3: Length of Use – Overall ...... 14 Figure 4: Length of Use – Year Comparison ...... 14 Figure 5: Length of Use – by Segment ...... 15 Figure 6: Length of Use – by Service Tier ...... 15 Figure 7: Frequency of Use – Overall...... 16 Figure 8: Frequency of Use – by Segment ...... 16 Figure 9: Frequency of Use – by Service Tier ...... 17 Figure 10: Trip Purpose – Overall ...... 17 Figure 11: Trip Purpose – by Segment ...... 18 Figure 12: Trip Purpose – by Service Tier ...... 19 Figure 13: Number of Buses – Overall ...... 20 Figure 14: Number of Buses – by Segment ...... 20 Figure 15: Number of Buses – by Service Tier ...... 21 Figure 16: Routes Most Frequently Used ...... 22 Figure 17: Map - Customer Home Density ...... 23 Figure 18: Transportation Alternatives – Overall...... 24 Figure 19: Transportation Alternatives – by Segment ...... 24 Figure 20: Transportation Alternatives – by Service Tier ...... 25 Figure 21: Vehicle Available for Trip – Overall ...... 25 Figure 22: Vehicle Available for Trip – by Segment ...... 26 Figure 23: Vehicle Available for Trip – by Service Tier ...... 26 Figure 24: Riding Frequency Compared to Last Year – Overall ...... 27 Figure 25: Riding Frequency Compared to Last Year –by Segment ...... 27 Figure 26: Riding Frequency Compared to Last Year – by Service Tier ...... 28 Figure 27: Reasons for Riding RTA More Than Year Ago (Multiple Response) – Overall ...... 28 Figure 28: Reasons for Riding RTA More Than Year Ago (Multiple Response) – by Segment ...... 29 Figure 29: Reasons for Riding RTA More Than Year Ago (Multiple Response) – by Service Tier ...... 30 Figure 30: Reasons for Riding RTA Less Than Year Ago (Multiple Response) – Overall ...... 30 Figure 31: Reasons for Riding RTA Less Than Year Ago (Multiple Response) – by Segment ...... 31 Figure 32: Reasons for Riding RTA Less Than Year Ago (Multiple Response) – by Service Tier ...... 32 Figure 33: Riding Frequency One Year from Now – Overall ...... 33 Figure 34: Riding Frequency One Year from Now – by Segment ...... 34 Figure 35: Riding Frequency One Year from Now – by Service Tier ...... 34 Figure 36: Why Less in One Year – Overall ...... 35 Figure 37: Why Less in One Year – by Segment ...... 35 Figure 38: Why Less in One Year – by Service Tier ...... 36 Figure 39: Top 10 Reasons for Infrequent Ridership (Multiple Response) – Overall ...... 37 Figure 40: Top 10 Reasons for Infrequent Ridership (Multiple Response) – by Segment ...... 37 Figure 41: Top 10 Reasons for Infrequent Ridership (Multiple Response) – by Service Tier ...... 38 Figure 42: Current Customer - Mean Satisfaction Ratings ...... 39 Figure 43: Current Customer - Top Tier Ratings ...... 40

v Item 8 69 Figure 44: Current Customer - Second Tier Ratings ...... 41 Figure 45: Current Customer - Third Tier Ratings ...... 42 Figure 46: Map - High Satisfaction of Overall Service ...... 43 Figure 47: Recommendation Likelihood – Overall ...... 44 Figure 48: Recommendation Likelihood – by Segment ...... 44 Figure 49: Recommendation Likelihood – by Service Tier ...... 45 Figure 50: Top 10 Most Important Factors to Encourage Riding (Multiple Response) – Overall ...... 45 Figure 51: Factors to Encourage to Riding (Multiple Response) – by Segment ...... 46 Figure 52: Factors to Encourage to Riding (Multiple Response) – by Service Tier ...... 47 Figure 53: I Would Ride More If… ...... 48 Figure 54: "Ride More If..." – More Frequent Buses – by Segment ...... 49 Figure 55: "Ride More If..." – Less Time to Make Trip – by Segment...... 49 Figure 56: "Ride More If..." – Cost Less – by Segment ...... 50 Figure 57: "Ride More If..." – Fewer Transfers – by Segment ...... 50 Figure 58: "Ride More If..." – More Special Event Buses – by Segment ...... 51 Figure 59: "Ride More If..." – Easier to Plan Trip – by Segment ...... 52 Figure 60: "Ride More If..." – Know More About Where Bus Goes – by Segment ...... 52 Figure 61: Fare – Overall ...... 53 Figure 62: Fare – by Segment ...... 53 Figure 63: Fare – by Service Tier ...... 54 Figure 64: Type of Fare – Overall ...... 54 Figure 65: Type of Fare – by Segment ...... 55 Figure 66: Type of Fare – by Service Tier ...... 56 Figure 67: Tools (Multiple Response) – Overall ...... 57 Figure 68: Tools (Multiple Response) – by Segment ...... 57 Figure 69: Tools (Multiple Response) – by Service Tier ...... 58 Figure 70: Smartphone – Overall ...... 59 Figure 71: Smartphone – by Segment ...... 59 Figure 72: Driver's License – Overall ...... 60 Figure 73: Smartphone – by Service Tier ...... 60 Figure 74: Driver's License – by Segment ...... 60 Figure 75: Driver's License – by Service Tier ...... 61 Figure 76: Persons with Disability – Overall ...... 61 Figure 77: Persons with Disability – by Segment ...... 62 Figure 78: Persons with Disability – by Service Tier ...... 62 Figure 79: Employment Status – Overall ...... 63 Figure 80: Employment Status – by Segment ...... 63 Figure 81: Employment Status – by Service Tier ...... 64 Figure 82: Student Status – Overall ...... 64 Figure 83: Student Status – by Segment ...... 65 Figure 84: Student Status – by Service Tier ...... 65 Figure 85: School Type – Overall ...... 66 Figure 86: School Type – by Segment ...... 66 Figure 87: School Type – by Service Tier ...... 67

vi Item 8 70 Figure 88: Age – Overall ...... 67 Figure 89: Age – by Segment ...... 68 Figure 90: Age – by Service Tier ...... 68 Figure 91: Ethnicity – Overall...... 69 Figure 92: Ethnicity – by Service Tier ...... 69 Figure 93: Language Other Than English – Overall ...... 70 Figure 94: Language Other Than English – by Service Tier ...... 70 Figure 95: Language – Overall ...... 70 Figure 96: Language – by Service Tier ...... 71 Figure 97: Language Proficiency – Overall ...... 72 Figure 98: Language Proficiency – by Service Tier ...... 72 Figure 99: Gender – Overall ...... 72 Figure 100: Gender – by Service Tier ...... 73 Figure 101: Income – Overall ...... 73 Figure 102: Income – by Service Tier ...... 74 Figure 103: Potential Customer Types ...... 75 Figure 104: Previous Riders – Reasons for No Longer Riding ...... 76 Figure 105: Previous Riders – Why Switched to Driving ...... 77 Figure 106: Awareness of RTA ...... 77 Figure 107: Awareness of RapidLink ...... 78 Figure 108: Map - Awareness of RapidLink by Home ZIP Code ...... 79 Figure 109: Awareness of CommuterLink ...... 80 Figure 110: Awareness of Dial-A-Ride ...... 81 Figure 111: Previous and Infrequent Riders - Length of Time as Rider ...... 81 Figure 112: Previous and Infrequent Riders - Reason for Trying RTA ...... 82 Figure 113: RTA Trip Types (Multiple Response) - Overall ...... 83 Figure 114: RTA Trip Types (Multiple Response) - by Potential Customer Type ...... 83 Figure 115: Destinations - Overall ...... 84 Figure 116: Destinations – by Potential Customer Type ...... 84 Figure 117: Travel Modes – Overall ...... 85 Figure 118: Travel Modes – by Potential Customer Type ...... 85 Figure 119: Travel Time for Most Common Trip ...... 86 Figure 120: RTA Use in Past Year ...... 86 Figure 121: Travel Minutes by Bus ...... 87 Figure 122: Consideration of Riding More, Again, or Try Riding - Overall ...... 88 Figure 123: Consideration of Riding More, Again, or Try Riding - by Potential Customer Type ...... 88 Figure 124: Factors That Would Encourage Riding the Bus ...... 89 Figure 125: Reasons for Not Riding the Bus ...... 90 Figure 126: Vehicle Availability – Overall...... 91 Figure 127: Vehicle Availability – by Potential Customer Type ...... 91 Figure 128: Ride Hailing/TNC Use ...... 92 Figure 129: Ride Hailing Frequency ...... 92 Figure 130: Ride Hailing Relationship ...... 93 Figure 131: Bus Stops Near Home ...... 93

vii Item 8 71 Figure 132: Bus Stops Near Work/School ...... 94 Figure 133: RTA Work/School Trip Feasibility ...... 94 Figure 134: Map - Locations Where Potential Customers Want More Service ...... 95 Figure 135: Potential Service Enhancements ...... 96 Figure 136: Community Impacts ...... 97 Figure 137: Satisfaction Averages...... 98 Figure 138: Top Tier Ratings - by Potential Customer Type ...... 99 Figure 139: Second Tier Ratings - by Potential Customer Type ...... 99 Figure 140: Third Tier Ratings - by Potential Customer Type ...... 100 Figure 141: Driver's License ...... 100 Figure 142: Persons with a Disability ...... 100 Figure 143: Employment ...... 101 Figure 144: Student Status ...... 101 Figure 145: School Type ...... 101 Figure 146: Age ...... 102 Figure 147: Ethnicity ...... 102 Figure 148: Gender ...... 103 Figure 149: Income ...... 103

Table of Tables

Table 1: List of Fixed Routes by Service Tier ...... 107 Table 2: Sampling Plan – Before Grouping Service Tier ...... 108 Table 3: Final Sampling Plan ...... 108 Table 4: Statistical Accuracy: System-wide and by Service Tier ...... 109 Table 5: Participation Rates by Tier ...... 110

viii Item 8 72 Chapter 1: Overview

Project Background The primary goal of the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Market Assessment and Strategic Directions Study is to identify strategies that can be immediately implemented to encourage additional transit ridership. To support this initiative, RTA seeks to better understand factors that contributed to the ridership declines through May 20181 as they relate to current and potential customers, particularly external factors including economic growth, increase in the prevalence of Uber and Lyft, changes in car ownership and low gas prices.

To better understand key motivations and drivers of transit use, RTA solicited feedback from its stakeholders using a two-pronged approach. An onboard survey was conducted with 2,123 current transit customers2 between April 24 and May 12, 2018 to determine their satisfaction levels with RTA services and to determine how RTA can encourage them to increase their use of RTA services and retain them as loyal customers. Feedback was also sought from 1,568 non-riders who live in the RTA service area to determine how non-riders currently travel, their level of interest in using public transit for at least some of their trips, and to determine what would motivate them to use public transit. A detailed discussion of the project methodology can be found in Chapter 6: Methodology.

The objective of this report is to present detailed findings from the onboard customer survey and general public (potential customer) survey including:

 Changes in the current customer profile since the 2013-2014 Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) where questions from both studies allow comparisons  Changes in customer travel patterns compared to a year ago  Current riders’ intent to ride RTA one year from now  Factors that would encourage individuals to ride more often  Overall satisfaction and satisfaction with key service attributes  Opportunities and barriers to increase ridership  Potential customer awareness of RTA  Potential customer profiles  Factors that would encourage potential customers to use RTA

Report Organization This report consists of six chapters which explore the demographic, behavioral and satisfaction characteristics of RTA customers and potential customers.

1 RTA Ridership Data: Ridership has been up since June 2018. June +1.8 percent, July +2.3 percent, August +3 percent and September + 0.1 percent. 2 Throughout this report the terms customers and riders are used interchangeably

1 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 73

Study findings are viewed from the vantage point of existing conditions to develop market and product segmentation to support the development of actionable service and marketing/public outreach recommendations to encourage current customer retention and new customer growth.

Analysis of current RTA customers is conducted at a system-level, service tier level and by key profiles which are defined as customers who are: employed, high school students, university/college students, persons over 60 years old, persons with disabilities and by the length of time as an RTA patron.

Analysis of potential customers is conducted for three market segments: persons who: ride infrequently, were previous riders, or have never ridden an RTA bus.

Percentages in individual charts and tables may not exactly total 100 percent due to rounding or a question allowing multiple responses. The reader is advised that for some of the segmentation analysis beyond the tier service levels that sample sizes are too small to draw statistical inferences and therefore the results, while insightful, should be considered directional and not necessarily statistically significant. In selected customer segmentation charts, where there are multiple response options and percentages are small, labels are omitted.

Chapter 1: Overview A brief historical background of RTA is provided along with a discussion of project objectives, changes in market conditions and the identification of opportunities and barriers to increase customer loyalty. Chapter 2: Executive Summary A summary of key study findings for the onboard and general public surveys and resulting recommendations are presented in this chapter. Chapter 3: Onboard Customer Survey Detailed Findings Findings of the onboard customer survey are explored at a system, service tier and selected market segmentation level in this chapter to provide a more complete understanding of the current RTA customer. Chapter 4: Potential Customer Survey Detailed Findings Findings of the general public survey results are discussed for three potential market segments: persons who: ride infrequently, were previous riders, or have never ridden an RTA bus. Awareness of RTA’s services and motivations to ride the bus are explored in this chapter. Chapter 5: Strategies to Retain Current Customers and Attract New Bus Riders An overview of considerations to support the development of service and marketing strategies is presented. Chapter 6: Methodology A discussion of the methodology including sampling plan development, survey design and weighting is provided. Appendix: The appendix contains the survey instruments for onboard customer and general public surveys.

2 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 74

Agency Overview

RTA operates fixed route and paratransit services. The fixed route service is comprised of thirty-eight regional, local, rural and trolley service routes and nine CommuterLink express routes. Depending upon the density and ridership, bus size varies from 40 foot vehicles in urban areas to smaller vehicles in suburban and rural areas where ridership may be lower. Figure 1: Jurisdictional Boundaries & Urbanized Regions Source: RTA Short Range Transit Plan FY18-FY20 Paratransit services in the form of Dial-A-Ride are available within ¾ of a mile of RTA fixed routes to provide transportation options for persons with disabilities and individuals who are 65 years or older. In 2015, RTA introduced a pilot program Dial-A-Ride Plus which extended the DAR service boundaries by an additional two miles to qualified individuals needing “life-sustaining services.” The program is funded by Local Transit Funds and Riverside county Transportation Commission’s Measure A3.

RTA’s operating environment is unique. Its service area is one of the largest in the nation, covering more than 2,500 square miles in western Riverside County. While over 90 percent of RTA’s services are provided in urban areas as defined by the 2010 US Census, it also serves rural portions of the county.

Defining service area characteristics include:

 Relatively low density for both housing and work  Parking is either free or very low cost  Congestion is limited compared to more urban areas  College and high school students account for almost 50 percent of the ridership base

Since the conduct of the COA, RTA has aggressively implemented services and improvements to address travel needs of the community. These include improving service frequencies, streamlining route

3 A review of the paratransit services falls outside of the scope of the current Market Assessment.

3 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 75

alignments, and creating a network of services that enhance connectivity especially with its Mobility Hub initiatives.

The implementation of these services has been supported by an aggressive marketing and outreach plan which includes programs targeted to current bus riders and the general public to provide information on existing and new services such as CommuterLink, RapidLink and route expansions. RTA has initiated programs to attract university and college riders though the U-Pass and Go-Pass programs with seven partner schools in Riverside County. RTA is also actively working to expand prepaid fare media for all riders with the goal of increasing customer access to transit. RTA is embraces technology and has introduced Advanced Traveler Information Systems technology known as “BusWatch” with the goal of providing real-time bus information through mobile apps.

In spite of efforts to improve service levels, it has been challenging to both expand services in emerging communities while maintaining on-time performance, as traffic congestion and road construction have increased due to growth and development.

Changes in Market Conditions External factors, outside of RTA’s control, have added to the complexity of maintaining ridership growth:

 The economy has rebounded and unemployment has dipped to record lows. In March 2012 unemployment in Riverside County registered 12.2 percent and preliminary numbers show that it has declined to 4.5 percent as of August 20184, the latest month for which statistics are available. While increased employment can lead to opportunities to increase ridership, consumers have more money which affords them more choices.

 Gas prices5 declined significantly between March 2012 ($4.14 per gallon) and March 2016 ($2.67 per gallon). However, in the last two years gasoline prices have crept upward to $3.58 per gallon as of September 2018. Increases in gasoline prices have traditionally stimulated transit ridership, however, this effect is offset in part by increases in vehicle fuel efficiency.

 With more hybrid and electric vehicles entering the market coupled with more stringent EPA standards for new vehicles, fuel economy continues to increase and is expected to continue to do so in coming years.

4https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LAUMT064014000000003?amp%253bdata_tool=XGtable&output_view=data&incl ude_graphs=true 5 https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=emm_epm0_pte_sca_dpg&f=m

4 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 76

Figure 2: Production Share and Adjusted Fuel Economy by Vehicle Type for MY 1975-2017 Source: EPA

 There has been rapid growth in the availability of transportation network companies (TNCs) like Uber and Lyft. However, a recent SCAG6 study conducted by the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies found little data to support the premise that this has decreased transit ridership. Based on the available data, the study concludes that most TNC related trips do not directly compete with transit related travel. Other research conducted by Hall, Palsson and Price in 20177 concluded that Uber is a complement to existing public transit services. However, this arena requires additional study, especially in terms of the longer term effect of the TNC network on transit.

 In January 2015, the ability to obtain a driver’s license became available to a segment of California residents who previously were unable to obtain one. According to data recently released by the DMV since AB60 took effect in January 2015, just over one million additional individuals have obtained a California Driver’s License8.

To increase transit ridership RTA must better understand its existing customers and potential customers and achieve longer term customer loyalty.

Significant shifts in environmental and operating conditions require an updated passenger profile to better identify the current customer base. The last passenger profile was prepared in 2013 as part of the

6 Falling Transit Ridership: California and Southern California, January 2018 prepared for SCAG by UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies, page 9 7 Is Uber a Substitute or Complement for Public Transit, Johnathan Hall, Craig Palsson and Joseph Rice, October 31, 2017 http://individual.utoronto.ca/jhall/documents/Uber_and_Public_Transit.pdf 8 California Surpasses 1 Million Driver’s Licenses for Undocumented Immigrants, Tatiana Sanchez, Mercury News, April 4, 2018

5 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 77

COA. Key elements of the rider demographic profile are updated as part of this study to identify if significant changes have occurred since 2013.

It is also essential for RTA to develop a profile of potential customers by learning more about their attitudes towards, and likelihood to use public transit. This was accomplished by conducting a general public non-rider survey.

6 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 78

Chapter 2: Executive Summary

Key Findings

A topline summary of key study findings and recommendations for the study is provided in this section.

Current RTA Customer

Transit Dependency

More of RTA’s customers are transit dependent than they were in 2013 when the last COA was conducted.

 Most customers do not have a vehicle available for their use (83 percent)  More than half of RTA riders (59 percent) do not have a driver’s license  Almost one third have no other means of transportation (30 percent)

Customer Profile

Students and persons who are employed comprise the majority of the ridership base. It follows that just over half of customers say they ride the bus at least five days a week. The average household income of RTA customers has declined since the last COA was conducted.

 Over half (53 percent) of RTA riders say they are employed either full-time or part-time which is down from 70 percent in 2013.  Almost half of RTA’s customers are students (48 percent9) essentially unchanged from 2013.  Half of RTA customers (51 percent) use the bus at least five days a week, which is comparable to 49 percent in 2013.  The proportion of individuals who are seniors (65 and older) has doubled to six percent from three percent.  Twenty-percent of riders say they have a disability and more than half (52 percent) of persons over 60 say they have a disability.  Approximately one-half of RTA riders (51 percent) have been riding RTA for two years or less, which is on-par with the 50 percent in 2013.  The proportion of individuals who identify themselves as Latino or Hispanic has increased from 37 percent to 41 percent compared to 49 percent for Riverside County.10  It follows that 46 percent speak a language other than English at home and most (81 percent) speak Spanish.

9 Thirty percent of bus boardings are students from two-year or four-year colleges and universities, while 10 percent attend high school and middle school, and eight percent attend other institutions or did not specify. 10 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2016

7 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 79

 Almost three-quarters of current customers (70 percent) live in households with an annual household income of less than $25,000 and most (88 percent) live in households with annual incomes of less than $50,000.  More than two-thirds of RTA customers (70 percent up from 63 percent in 2013) live in households with annual household incomes of less than $25,000 compared to 19 percent of Riverside County residents.

Trip Purpose

School and work remain the top reasons customers ride the bus, however the proportion of school trips has dropped by seven points since 2013.  Traveling to school (31 percent) or work (29 percent) are the most common reasons customers cite for using the bus.  Personal errands (nine percent), social recreational related trips (eight percent), shopping (eight percent) and medical trips (six percent) are collectively almost a third of trips.

Riding Frequency

Most customers say they are riding with the same frequency or more than they were a year ago which suggests that the decline in ridership is from persons who have stopped riding the bus rather than from persons who are using the bus less often. However, more than one-third (36 percent) say they plan to use the bus less a year from now. Individuals who identify as students are more likely to say they will ride less one year from now (42 percent), compared to 31 percent who are non-students. Because students comprise approximately half of all riders declining RTA use from this group will likely have a substantial effect on ridership.

The top three reasons customers cite for planning to use the bus less are:

 The expectation of having a car (50 percent).  Obtaining a driver’s license (17 percent).  The prospect of having more money (15 percent) allowing other choices.

Customer Satisfaction

There is a high level of overall satisfaction with riders awarding a 4.13 on the five-point scale. Three quarters of riders give a satisfaction rating of 4 or above and just five percent are not satisfied.

 Rider satisfaction is highest with the Ride Guide, coach operator courtesy, and the use of technology such as iAlerts, Wi-Fi and BusWatch.  Customer satisfaction is lowest with the time waiting for the bus, hours of service and the cost of a monthly pass.  Almost three-quarters (71 percent) of RTA riders are likely to recommend RTA service to a friend or colleague.

8 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 80

 Non-students are more likely to say they would recommend RTA (74 percent) than students (69 percent).  Of those individuals who have been using RTA for at least five years, 77 percent would recommend it compared to 66 percent of riders who have been using the service for six months or less.

Encouraging More Frequent Use

Although the COA addressed service improvements to improve service frequency and travel time, these items remain at the forefront of current riders desired improvements.

 When customers were asked to select the top three factors that might encourage them to ride RTA more often more affordable monthly passes (30 percent), more frequent bus service (29 percent) and shorter wait times (29 percent) topped the list.

Potential Customer

Awareness

RTA’s awareness level is high among the general public at 80 percent unaided awareness, and 89 percent total awareness. RTA’s newer service offerings have a lower awareness among the general population.

 Awareness increases with age starting at 52 percent for those under 20 and increasing to 72 percent for people in their 20s, 81 percent for people in their 30s, and 84 to 88 percent or higher for those in their 40s, 50s and older.  Awareness of RTA’s specialized services is lower at 28 percent for RapidLink and 36 percent for CommuterLink. However it should be noted that in areas that are adjacent to these service corridors awareness is significantly higher.

RTA’s Impact on the Community

The general public was asked to rate their agreement about RTA’s impact on the community.

 “Public transit is important to the community” received the strongest level of agreement with an average score of 4.19 using a five-point scale where 1 equates to “Strongly Disagree” and 5 equates to “Strongly Agree.”  The other two statements received significantly lower levels of agreement, with “Public transit is an important contributor to achieving environmental goals in the community” receiving an average agreement score of 3.89, and “RTA provides a viable alternative to the private automobile” receiving an average score of 3.75.

9 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 81

TNC Use

Use of TNCs is common but infrequent. Almost half of potential customers (47 percent) have used Uber or Lyft, but three-quarters (74 percent) say they use it less than once a month and most (71 percent) say their use of TNCs has no impact on riding RTA buses. These findings are similar to findings from previously referenced studies conducted for SCAG by the UCLA Institute of Transportation Studies and also by Hall, Palsson and Price in 2017.

Former RTA Customers

Cars are the dominant reason for loss of previous riders with almost half (46 percent) saying that they bought a car to replace their trip on RTA and another third (34 percent) saying they switched to a car that they already had. Together this accounts for 80 percent of all lost riders. The primary reasons for switching to driving alone are privacy and comfort of driving alone (38 percent), and travel by bus taking too long (23 percent).

Willingness to Consider RTA

Three-quarters of previous (76 percent) and infrequent (75 percent) riders would consider riding again or more, respectively. Even among those who have never used RTA, 42 percent say they would consider riding the bus.

Growing the Customer Base

The factors cited by non-riders are recurrent of themes identified in the COA.

 The largest ridership impact factor is increased service frequency (24 percent), followed by fewer transfers (22 percent) and expanded span of service (18 percent).  At a lower level, increased safety and better control of rider behavior and hygiene were each cited by 11 percent of potential customers.

Strategies to Retain Existing and Attract New Customers

Strategies to decrease ridership loss and increase ridership growth will revolve around retaining current customers, recruiting new customers and to a lesser extent reclaiming lost customers. This will involve a commitment to continuous evaluation of services and ongoing marketing and public outreach campaigns.

RTA and other transit agencies face a set of formidable competitors: the car, and to a lesser extent TNCs and other active and passive transportation modes such as walking and bicycling. This is reflected in declining transit ridership on a national level as customers (potential and existing) abandon transit as a consideration most often in favor of the automobile which delivers reduced travel time in the comfort

10 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 82 and privacy of their automobile. Stable gasoline prices, increased mileage efficiency, the lure of less travel time, flexibility and the abundance of technology from Bluetooth to navigation systems add to the magnetism of the automobile.

To generate additional ridership RTA must continue to close any gaps between customers’ expectations and its current service offering and then effectively communicate the improved service proposition to retain existing and recruit new customers and when feasible regain lost customers. Evaluating service frequency, length of travel time and the perceived value of the fare will be central to this effort.

11 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 83

- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -

12 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 84

Chapter 3: Onboard Customer Survey Detailed Findings

Section Organization To allow for a more granular review of data, results are displayed by sections that break out the study in three contexts: overall results at a system level, service tier and selected market segments. Accompanying text references may note other comparisons not shown within the graph but provide additional data insight.

Service tiers generally align with those identified in the COA, however, to achieve a standard statistical precision of + 5 percent at 95 percent confidence level Community Feeder service is grouped with the Supporting Local Routes and CommuterLink is grouped with Regional Connector Service.

List of Fixed Routes by Service Tier Service Tier Routes Frequent Key Corridor 1 16 RapidLink 3 8 10 11 12 13 15 18 19 20 21 23 24 Supporting Local 26 29 30 32 33 41 42 49 52 54 Regional Connector 14 22 27 31 61 74 79 Community Feeder 40 50 51 55 200 202 204 205 206 208 210 212 CommuterLink 217

Results are also displayed as they relate to the key demographic segments:

 Customers who are employed  Customers who are high school students  Customers who are college/university students  Customers with disabilities  Customers who are 60 years or older  Length of time a customer has been using RTA These segments are not necessarily unique as a student may be employed and a person with a disability may be a student, however, segmentation is useful for understanding customer retention and increasing new ridership. For example, customers who are employed and students can be reached through schools and places of employment/businesses, which have more discrete locations for targeting markets. Similarly, customers with disabilities or who are 60 and over can be reached at senior centers or through public and private organizations who serve those particular communities. Segmentation by length of use can be beneficial to guide the development of targeted marketing strategies to encourage rider retention through a better understanding of customers at different temporal stages of the customer cycle.

13 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 85

Ridership Characteristics

Length of Use Figure 3: Length of Use – Overall n = 2,093 Approximately one-half of RTA riders (51 percent) < 6 have been riding RTA for two years or less, which is MONTHS on-par with the COA at 50 percent. This suggests 15% that there is a continual turnover in ridership which is consistent with a high proportion of customers who are students. 5+ YEARS 34% LENGTH OF There is some shift between studies in customer longevity. One-third of RTA riders (34 percent) TIME AS RTA have been customers for five or more years, up CUSTOMER from 28 percent in the COA. The proportion of 6 riders who have been riding between six months MONTHS and two years has increased to 36 percent from 29 3-4 YEARS - 2 YEARS percent which may in part be attributable to the 15% 36% new service introductions such as the RapidLink and the CommuterLink.

Figure 4: Length of Use – Year Comparison n = 2,093

< 6 MONTHS 6 MONTHS - 2 YEARS 3-4 YEARS 5+ YEARS

2018 15% 36% 15% 34% 2013 21% 29% 22% 28%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Students are more likely to be newer riders with almost two-thirds (62 percent) new to RTA in the past two years. By comparison, 41 percent of those who are not enrolled in school have been riding less than two years. There is virtually no difference in tenure between employed customers (49 percent) and unemployed customers (51 percent) who have been riding less than two years. Customers who are disabled (56 percent) and 60 or over (56 percent) are most likely to have been riding RTA for five years or more suggesting strong customer loyalty and dependence upon RTA for travel.

14 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 86

Figure 5: Length of Use – by Segment n = 2,093

< 6 MNTHS 6 MONTHS - 2 YEARS 3-4 YEARS 5+ YEARS

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EMPLOYED 15% 34% 16% 35%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 14% 47% 19% 20% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 17% 51% 15% 17%

60+ 10% 25% 9% 56%

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 8% 23% 14% 56%

Customers who ride local and feeder routes (36 percent) are directionally more likely than other service segments to have been riding RTA more than five years than those using key corridor (31 percent) or regional and CommuterLink routes (32 percent).

Figure 6: Length of Use – by Service Tier n = 2,093

SYSTEM KEY CORRIDOR REGIONAL/LINK LOCAL/FEEDER

37% 38% 40% 36% 35% 36% 33% 31% 32%

18% 20% 15% 14% 13% 14% 14% 14% 13%

1% 1% 1% 2% 0% FIRST TIME < 6 MONTHS 6 MONTHS-2 YRS 3-4 YEARS 5+ YEARS

15 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 87

Frequency of Use Figure 7: Frequency of Use – Overall Frequency of use among riders is essentially n = 2,104 unchanged from 2013. Half of RTA customers < ONCE FIRST (51 percent) use the bus at least five days a /MNTH < ONCE / 2% TIME week, which is comparable to 49 percent in WK 2% 2013. 4%

Frequency of use in 2018 is also similar to 2013 1-2 5-7 DAYS/WK DAYS/WK at lower levels, at 28 and 25 percent for three to 13% 51% four days a week, and 13 percent and 14 percent for one to two days a week. FREQUENCY Customers who are employed (56 percent) are OF more likely to ride five or more days a week USE compared to half of students (49 percent).

Customers who have been using the bus less 3-4 than six months are least likely (36 percent) to DAYS/WK 28% be five-day riders compared to customers of longer durations. At 21 percent, they are also most likely to ride only once a week or less.

Figure 8: Frequency of Use – by Segment n = 2,104

5-7 DAYS/WEEK 3-4 DAYS/WEEK 1-2 DAYS/WEEK < ONCE/WEEK < ONCE/MONTH FIRST TIME 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EMPLOYED 56% 24% 11% 5%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 44% 38% 13% 4% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 66% 17% 10% 4%

60+ 54% 26% 9% 4% 4%

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 53% 30% 9% 4%

< 6 MONTHS 36% 29% 13% 8% 10% 6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 51% 30% 13% 3-4 YEARS 54% 28% 14% 5+ YEARS 56% 24% 13% 5%

16 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 88

Frequency of use is generally comparable among service tiers with customers who use local and feeder routes to be directionally more likely to use the bus five or more days per week.

Figure 9: Frequency of Use – by Service Tier n = 2,104

SYSTEM KEY CORRIDOR REGIONAL/LINK LOCAL/FEEDER 60% 53% 51%50% 48%

40%

28%27% 27% 28%

20% 14% 13% 13% 12%

5% 6% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 5-7 DAYS/WK 3-4 DAYS/WK 1-2 DAYS/WK < ONCE/WK < ONCE/MNTH FIRST TIME

Figure 10: Trip Purpose – Overall Trip Purpose n = 2,097 The vast majority of trips (91 percent) fall into DINING/ HOME six trip categories. Almost two-thirds (60 COFFEE 2% percent) of all trips are generated by either 1% MED./SOC. SPECIAL OTHER work (29 percent) or school (31 percent) SERVICES EVENT 4% followed by personal errands (nine percent), 6% 1% social recreational related trips (eight percent), SCHOOL/ shopping (eight percent) and medical trips (six SOC/REC COLLEGE percent). The proportion of work trips at 29 8% 31% percent is essentially flat when compared to 2013, 27 percent. However, the proportion of TRIP school related trips dropped to 31 percent SHOPPING PURPOSE from 37 percent. 8%

ERRANDS 9% WORK 29%

17 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 89

The effects of historic low unemployment and a stronger economy point to some changes in trip-making patterns. The COA noted that school accounted for 37 percent of all trip purposes followed by work at 27 percent. During the period between 2013 and 2018 unemployment in Riverside County11 has dropped from 9.9 percent to 4.5 percent, which may contribute to the noted shift among trip purposes. In line with a stronger economy, more customers are using RTA for shopping and personal errands (17 percent compared to 11 percent). Medical related trips are unchanged between periods.

Figure 11: Trip Purpose – by Segment n = 2,097

SCHOOL WORK ERRANDS SHOPPING SOC/REC MEDICAL/SOCIAL SERVICES DINING/COFFEE SPECIAL EVENT OTHER 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EMPLOYED 20% 50% 8% 6% 6%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 65% 14% 5% 6%

STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 66% 5% 6% 5% 7% 6%

60+ 19% 12% 16% 14% 20% 5% 6%

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 14% 22% 15% 11% 11% 16% 4%

< 6 MONTHS 34% 28% 10% 8% 5% 6%

6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 42% 26% 7% 6% 5% 7%

3-4 YEARS 33% 33% 9% 9% 8%

5+ YEARS 16% 29% 12% 10% 11% 9% 6%

11 EDD Labor Force and Unemployment Rates for Cities and Census Designated Places http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/labor-force-and-unemployment-for-cities-and-census-areas.html

18 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 90

Figure 12: Trip Purpose – by Service Tier n = 2,097 Customers who have been riding RTA for less than six months (34 0% 20% 40% percent) and six months to two years 31% (42 percent) are most likely to be 31% SCHOOL 28% heading to school. Customers of five 31% or more years are nearly twice as 29% 28% likely to be headed to work (29 WORK 32% 27% percent) than school (16 percent). 9% Customers headed to medical or ERRANDS 9% 11% social services destinations are more 9% 8% common among riders who are 60 8% and over (20 percent) and/or riders SHOPPING 7% 9% who have disabilities (16 percent). 8% Riders who are 60 and over also have 7% SOC/REC 8% a higher proportion of shopping (16 8% percent) and social/recreational (14 6% MED./SOC. 6% percent) trips than other age groups. SERVICES 5% These findings suggest that persons 7% 1% with disabilities and who are over 60 2% rely on RTA for a wider range of trip SPECIAL EVENT 2% 1% purposes. 1% DINING/ 2% Among service tiers there is no 1% COFFEE statistical difference in trip purpose 1% SYSTEM 4% although school related trips are 4% KEY CORRIDOR OTHER 5% directionally lower in the 4% REGIONAL/LINK regional/CommuterLink tier and 2% work trips are directionally higher on HOME 2% LOCAL/FEEDER 2% regional/CommuterLink routes. 2%

19 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 91

Figure 13: Number of Buses – Overall n = 2,056 OTHER Number of Buses 4% Just over half of all trips (52 percent) can be 3 BUSES made with one bus while 30 percent require 14% two buses and 18 percent require three or more. The average number of buses required to make a trip is 1.63 and shows NUMBER little variability among service segments. OF

BUSES 1 BUS 52%

2 BUSES 30%

Figure 14: Number of Buses – by Segment n = 2,056

1 BUS 2 BUSES 3 BUSES OTHER 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EMPLOYED 53% 30% 14%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 62% 26% 10% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 66% 26% 6%

60+ 39% 36% 18% 6%

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 41% 29% 22% 7%

< 6 MONTHS 54% 29% 11% 6% 6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 58% 31% 9% 3-4 YEARS 51% 33% 13% 5+ YEARS 46% 28% 20% 6%

Customers who were surveyed on key corridor routes (1, RapidLink, 16) use fewer buses transfers (1.60) than riders who completed a survey on routes designated as regional/CommuterLink (1.67) which likely reflect the nature of the service. The average number of buses required to make a trip on local/ feeder routes is 1.62.

20 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 92

Figure 15: Number of Buses – by Service Tier n = 2,056

SYSTEM KEY CORRIDOR REGIONAL/LINK LOCAL/FEEDER

60% 54% 52% 51% 52%

40% 30% 30% 30% 30%

20% 14% 13% 15% 13%

4% 3% 4% 5% 0% 1 BUS 2 BUSES 3 BUSES OTHER

Routes Most Frequently Used Customers were asked to note the five routes they used most often (see Figure 16: Routes Most Frequently Used). Routes most frequently mentioned were routes 1, 15,16,19 and 27 which is consistent with the general ridership patterns for the top five routes in the RTA system. Route 1, which has the highest RTA daily ridership received more than twice as many mentions as other routes.

Geographic Density of Home Locations To best visualize the spatial patterns of likely trip-making through the RTA system, Figure 17: Map - Customer Home Density presents the sum of home counts by survey weight within ZIP codes of the service region.12 As homes are the ultimate origin to all destinations, this analysis assumes that all trips radiate out from these locations.

The highest density of customer homes is to the east of where the SR 215 and SR 91 intersect, to the west of Belvedere Heights, and south of Highgrove. The second densest region is situated between the south of Riverside Municipal Airport and to the north of Lake Mathews. In general, RTA customer home densities radiate out from Downtown Riverside and decrease with distance away from the centroid.

12 Customers’ home ZIP codes are captured by the first question within the survey. Survey weights are calculated based on known boarding counts by route. ZIP code sizes vary.

21 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 93

Figure 16: Routes Most Frequently Used n = 1,910 0% 20% 40% 60%

1 50% 19 20% 15 20% 16 18% 27 15% 22 13% 20 12% 13 12% 14 12% 12 8% 10 8% 49 7% 18 7% 74 6% 21 5% 31 5% RapidLink 5% 11 5% 29 5% 200 5% 3 4% 32 4% 79 3% 8 3% 41 3% 61 3% 23 3% 30 2% 204 2% 24 2% 205/206 2% 51 2% 208 1% 33 1% 52 1% 212 1% 42 1% 26 1% 217 1%

22 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 94

Figure 17: Map - Customer Home Density

23 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 95

Use Changes & Competition

Transit Dependency Figure 18: Transportation Alternatives – Overall Almost one-third of riders (30 percent) n = 2,088 have no other means of transportation SKATE OTHER other than the bus. 1% TRAIN 2% Approximately one quarter (22 percent) 6% BUS IS MY would walk or ride a bike (22 percent) and ONLY CARPOOL/ OPTION 15 percent would use a transportation VANPOOL 30% network company (TNC) alternative. 11% The largest segment of customers who are transit dependent are individuals who are DRIVE TRANSPORTATION 60 and over (45 percent). ALONE ALTERNATIVES 13% By comparison, three-quarters of customers who are students (74 percent) or employed (74 percent) have some other means of transportation. UBER/LYFT/ TAXI WALK/BIKE 15% 22% Figure 19: Transportation Alternatives – by Segment n = 2,088

BUS IS MY ONLY OPTION WALK/BIKE UBER/LYFT/TAXI DRIVE ALONE CARPOOL/VANPOOL TRAIN OTHER SKATEBOARD

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EMPLOYED 26% 20% 19% 14% 11% 7%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 24% 23% 19% 13% 15% 5% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 27% 23% 9% 17% 15%

60+ 45% 21% 4% 17% 9%

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 39% 23% 11% 9% 8% 7%

< 6 MONTHS 25% 17% 20% 20% 9% 5% 6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 29% 22% 16% 12% 13% 5% 3-4 YEARS 28% 22% 17% 14% 11% 6% 5+ YEARS 35% 25% 10% 11% 9% 8%

24 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 96

Figure 20: Transportation Alternatives – by Service Tier n = 2,088

0% 20% 40% 30% Customers who say that BUS IS MY ONLY OPTION 29% 29% the bus is their only 32% option shows no statistical 22% difference among service WALK/BIKE 24% 20% tiers, however, riders who 22% use local/feeder services 15% are directionally more UBER/LYFT/ 15% likely to say the bus is TAXI 14% 15% their only option. 13% Customers who use DRIVE ALONE 12% regional/CommuterLink 16% services are directionally 13% more likely to say they 11% CARPOOL/ 9% would drive alone. VANPOOL 11% 12% SYSTEM KEY CORRIDOR 6% REGIONAL/LINK TRAIN 7% 8% LOCAL/FEEDER 4%

Figure 21: Vehicle Available for Trip – Overall n = 1,967 YES 17% Vehicle Available for Trip The vast majority (83 percent) of riders do not have a vehicle available to make their trip.

VEHICLE AVAILABLE FOR TRIP

NO 83%

25 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 97

Figure 22: Vehicle Available for Trip – by Segment n = 1,967 YES NO 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EMPLOYED 20% 80%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 17% 83% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 12% 88%

60+ 28% 72%

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 16% 84%

< 6 MONTHS 18% 82% 6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 15% 85% 3-4 YEARS 22% 78% 5+ YEARS 18% 82%

Figure 23: Vehicle Available for Trip – by Service Tier n = 1,967

SYSTEM KEY CORRIDOR REGIONAL/LINK LOCAL/FEEDER

100% 83% 84% 84% 77% Customers using the regional/CommuterLink 80% routes are most likely to have a vehicle to make their trip (23 percent). 60%

40% 23% 17% 20% 16% 16%

0% YES NO

26 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 98

Figure 24: Riding Frequency Compared to Last Year – Overall n = 1,501 LESS Trip Frequency Compared to Last Year OFTEN Seven percent of customers say they are riding less 7% than they were a year ago. Over half (51 percent) are riding more and 41 percent cite no change in use. This suggests that the majority of the ridership decline is from individuals who leave the system rather than those who are riding less. COMPARISON TO For customers who have been riding less often, there MORE is little difference between segments. ABOUT LAST YEAR OFTEN THE SAME 51% 41%

Figure 25: Riding Frequency Compared to Last Year –by Segment n = 1,501

MORE OFTEN ABOUT THE SAME LESS OFTEN 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EMPLOYED 52% 41% 7%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 51% 43% 6% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 52% 41% 7%

60+ 41% 52% 7%

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 48% 46% 6%

< 6 MONTHS 100% 6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 49% 45% 6% 3-4 YEARS 43% 49% 8% 5+ YEARS 45% 45% 10%

27 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 99

Figure 26: Riding Frequency Compared to Last Year – by Service Tier n = 1,501

SYSTEM KEY CORRIDOR REGIONAL/LINK LOCAL/FEEDER There is little difference between 60% 53% service tiers for customers who have 51% 49% 48% been riding less often compared to 44% 42% 41% 40% last year. However, riders on 40% local/feeder routes are slightly more likely (53 percent) to ride more than they were a year ago.

20%

7% 8% 8% 7%

0% MORE OFTEN ABOUT THE SAME LESS OFTEN

Factors for Riding More Often

Figure 27: Reasons for Riding RTA More Than Year Ago (Multiple Response) – Overall n = 708 0% 20% 40% Customers who are riding RTA more TRAVEL MORE 31% compared to last year CAN'T DRIVE 30% are primarily doing so NO CAR AVAILABLE 27% because they are generally traveling more CHANGED HOME 15% (31 percent), cannot GAS INCREASED 9% drive (30 percent), they CHANGED JOBS 8% no longer have a car available (27 percent), or PARKING INCREASED 3% they changed their home STARTED/CHANGED SCHOOL 2% location (15 percent). OTHER 6%

28 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 100

Figure 28: Reasons for Riding RTA More Than Year Ago (Multiple Response) – by Segment n = 708

TRAVEL MORE CAN'T DRIVE NO CAR AVAILABLE CHANGED HOME GAS INCREASED CHANGED JOBS PARKING INCREASED STARTED/CHANGED SCHOOL OTHER NEW/CHANGED BUS ROUTE OR SCHEDULE

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 150%

EMPLOYED 26% 25% 29% 14% 8% 15%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 32% 32% 18% 18% 7% 8% 9% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 26% 55% 17% 31%

60+ 44% 29% 32% 19% 10%

PERSONS WITH 44% 26% 25% 11% 15% 6% DISABILITIES

< 6 MONTHS 14% 32% 34% 15% 8% 6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 22% 37% 25% 19% 8% 10% 3-4 YEARS 44% 29% 23% 18% 11% 12% 5+ YEARS 45% 24% 26% 8% 11% 8%

Longer-term customers who have been riding three to four years (44 percent) and five years or more (45 percent) are most likely to cite traveling more in general as their primary reason for RTA use increases. Customers most likely to cite that they can’t drive are customers of six months to two years (37 percent) and riders of less than six months (32 percent).

Students are more likely than non-students to cite their use increase is due to not being able to drive (35 percent vs 23 percent) and that they changed their home location (20 percent vs 10 percent). Over half of high school students cite that they can’t drive (55 percent), compared to nearly one-third (32 percent) of college/university students.

Customers who are employed are nearly evenly split on the top three reasons for increased use change: 26 percent travel more, 25 percent can’t drive, and 29 percent don’t have a car available.

Customers who are 60 and over are the most likely age category to cite traveling more (44 percent).

29 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 101

Figure 29: Reasons for Riding RTA More Than Year Ago (Multiple Response) – by Service Tier n = 708 0% 20% 40%

Riders on the key corridor (34 31% TRAVEL MORE 34% percent) and 34% 27% regional/CommuterLink (34 30% percent) routes are more likely to 34% CAN'T DRIVE 22% cite traveling more in general. Not 32% being able to drive is most 27% 23% commonly cited by customers on NO CAR AVAILABLE 28% the key corridor (34 percent) and 29% 15% local/feeder (32 percent). Not 19% CHANGED HOME 15% having a car available is more 12% SYSTEM common with 9% KEY CORRIDOR regional/CommuterLink (28 GAS INCREASED 7% 14% REGIONAL/LINK percent) and local/feeder 7% LOCAL/FEEDER customers (29 percent). 8% 6% CHANGED JOBS 10% 8% 3% 6% PARKING INCREASED 2% 2%

Figure 30: Reasons for Riding RTA Less Than Year Ago Factors for Riding Less (Multiple Response) – Overall 13 n = 98 Often The top three reasons cited 0% 20% 40% for riding less frequently are: traveling less (27 percent), TRAVEL LESS OFTEN 27% having a car (20 percent) HAVE A CAR 20% and changes in job or home CHANGED JOB/HOME LOCATION 19% locations (19 percent). TAKES TOO LONG 13% Service related factors CARPOOL/VANPOOL 12% mentioned for riding less include: destination not USE TNC MORE 10% served by transit (nine DOES NOT GO TO DESTINATION 9% percent), service not DON'T RUN WHEN I NEED THEM 9% operating at times needed BIKE 1% (nine percent) and taking too long to travel (13 OTHER 13% percent).

13 Because the response rate for this question is small (n=98) results should be considered directional and not statistically representative.

30 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 102

Figure 31: Reasons for Riding RTA Less Than Year Ago (Multiple Response) – by Segment n = 98

TRAVEL LESS OFTEN HAVE A CAR CHANGED JOB/HOME LOCATION TAKES TOO LONG CARPOOL/VANPOOL USE TNC MORE DOES NOT GO TO DESTINATION DON'T RUN WHEN I NEED THEM BIKE OTHER 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%

EMPLOYED 26% 21% 27% 15% 21% 11%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 36% 20% 23% 12% 9% 10% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 22% 14% 24% 20% 24% 22%

60+ 32% 8% 35% 25%

PERSONS WITH 36% 17% 17% 6% 20% DISABILITIES

< 6 MONTHS 6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 25% 22% 23% 13% 15% 15% 3-4 YEARS 33% 21% 19% 8% 14% 14% 22% 5+ YEARS 26% 20% 17% 14% 12% 21% 11% 9% 7%

Customers who are students are more likely (32 percent) than riders who are employed (26 percent) to cite traveling less often. Riders who are employed (27 percent) are more likely to cite changing job/home locations than students (20 percent).

31 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 103

Figure 32: Reasons for Riding RTA Less Than Year Ago (Multiple Response) – by Service Tier n = 98

0% 20% 40% 60%

27% 22% TRAVEL LESS OFTEN 39% 24% 20% 22% HAVE A CAR 22% 19% 19% 22% CHANGED JOB/HOME LOCATION 17% 18% 13% 10% TAKES TOO LONG 7% 17% 12% 10% CARPOOL/VANPOOL 8% 15% 10% 14% USE TNC MORE 9% 8% 9% 10% DOES NOT GO TO DESTINATION 3% 12% 9% 10% SYSTEM DON'T RUN WHEN I NEED THEM 10% 8% KEY CORRIDOR 1% 0% REGIONAL/LINK BIKE 0% 2% LOCAL/FEEDER 13% 18% OTHER 6% 13%

Customers on the regional/CommuterLink are more likely (39 percent) than other service tiers to travel less often. Riders on the local/feeder are more likely (17 percent) to say that it takes too long to travel by bus than other groups.

32 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 104

Future Use: Anticipated Trip Frequency Figure 33: Riding Frequency One Year Ride Frequency One Year from Now from Now – Overall n = 1,866 One year from now, half of RTA customers (51 MORE percent) expect to be riding with the same OFTEN frequency as they did in May 2018 and 12 12% percent expect to be riding more often. LESS However, more than one-third (36 percent) say OFTEN 36% they will be riding less. RIDING Individuals who are students are more likely to FREQUENCY say they will ride less one year from now (42 percent), compared to 31 percent who are not ONE YEAR students and high school students are more FROM NOW likely (50 percent) than college students (40 percent) to anticipate riding less often.

As riders’ age increases, the likelihood they will ABOUT ride the bus less one year from now decreases. THE SAME Riders who are in their 30s represent the turning 51% point with 35 percent of the age group thinking they will ride less often next year. Almost half (45 percent) of riders under 30 plan to ride less often than they are now compared to a quarter of riders (24 percent) who are over 30.

Riders who are most likely to be considering riding less are customers who have been using the bus two years or less (44 percent). The point of highest vulnerability is seen with riders who have been using the bus less than six months, with half of this group (50 percent) saying they will not ride as often one year from now. By comparison approximately one quarter of riders (28 percent) who have been using the bus for more than three years say they will be riding less one year from now.

Riders who are disabled are also most likely to anticipate riding the same frequency in one year (63 percent). These customers are significantly less likely than other rider segments to anticipate riding less (17 percent vs 41 percent), which is expected as they are more likely to be dependent on public transit.

There is little variation between customers who are employed (37 percent) versus those who are not employed (34 percent).

33 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 105

Figure 34: Riding Frequency One Year from Now – by Segment n = 1,866 MORE OFTEN ABOUT THE SAME LESS OFTEN 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EMPLOYED 11% 52% 37%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 7% 52% 40% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 8% 42% 50%

60+ 15% 75% 10%

PERSONS WITH 20% 63% 17% DISABILITIES

< 6 MONTHS 12% 38% 50% 6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 9% 51% 41% 3-4 YEARS 12% 51% 37% 5+ YEARS 17% 59% 24%

Figure 35: Riding Frequency One Year from Now – by Service Tier n = 1,866

SYSTEM KEY CORRIDOR REGIONAL/LINK LOCAL/FEEDER

60% 51% 51% 51% 52% There are no notable differences among service tiers of customers’ future intent to 37% ride. 40% 36% 35% 35%

20% 14% 13% 12% 11%

0% MORE OFTEN ABOUT THE SAME LESS OFTEN

34 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 106

Figure 36: Why Less in One Year – Overall Factors Influencing Riding Less n = 619 in One Year OTHER The likelihood of (the expectation of RIDERS USE obtaining and) having a car (50 percent) 1% UBER/LYFT is the top factor mentioned for planning OTHER 1% RIDERS to ride the bus less often. This is 1% followed by obtaining a driver’s license CHANGE (17 percent), and the prospect of having HOME/JOB/ SCHOOL more money (15 percent) allowing other 12% transportation choices. An expected change in home/work/school locations is MORE WHY LESS a factor for 12 percent of riders. MONEY FOR OTHER OFTEN IN Among college and university students, CHOICES having a car (38 percent), getting a 15% ONE YEAR driver’s license (23 percent), changes in home/job or school locations (16 percent) and more money (16 percent) GETTING HAVE A CAR are the reasons that they plan to ride LICENSE 50% less. Among high school students, having 17% a driver’s license (36 percent) is the top reason they plan to ride less often.

Figure 37: Why Less in One Year – by Segment n = 619

HAVE A CAR GETTING DRIVER'S LICENSE MORE MONEY FOR OTHER TRANSIT CHOICES CHANGE HOME/JOB/SCHOOL USE UBER/LYFT SAFETY CONCERNS BEHAVIOR/HYGIENE OF OTHER RIDERS MEDICAL REASONS/AGING OTHER 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EMPLOYED 55% 14% 15% 11%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 38% 23% 16% 19% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 32% 36% 16% 8% 5%

60+ 34% 11% 11% 19% 7% 14%

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 51% 12% 15% 7% 4%

< 6 MONTHS 49% 14% 18% 7% 7% 6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 50% 23% 9% 13% 3-4 YEARS 50% 12% 18% 14% 5+ YEARS 48% 11% 20% 16%

35 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 107

Figure 38: Why Less in One Year – by Service Tier Customers who are 60 and over also n = 619 most commonly cite having a car (34 percent) as their primary reason for 0% 20% 40% 60% anticipated decreased transit use followed by changes in 50% 42% home/work/school locations (19 HAVE A CAR 49% percent). 55% 17% Customers on the local/feeder routes 18% GETTING DRIVER'S LICENSE 17% are most likely (55 percent) to cite 16% getting a car as the reason for 15% MORE MONEY FOR OTHER 17% anticipated decrease of bus use in the TRANSIT CHOICES 17% future 12% 12% Riders who are students are more likely CHANGE HOME/JOB/ 16% SCHOOL 8% than non-students to say getting a 12% driver’s license (25 percent vs 9 1% 0% percent) and change SAFETY CONCERNS 1% home/work/school location (16 percent 2% SYSTEM vs eight percent) are the factors that 1% KEY CORRIDOR BEHAVIOR/ HYGIENE OF 0% will result in them riding the bus less OTHER RIDERS 1% REGIONAL/LINK than they do now. 1% LOCAL/FEEDER 1% Riders who are employed are more 1% USE UBER/LYFT 1% likely than unemployed riders to 0% anticipate having a car (55 percent vs 3% 4% 47 percent) and this cohort also OTHER 5% anticipates having more money for 2% other transit choices (15 percent vs 11 percent).

36 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 108

Top 10 Reasons for Infrequent Ridership

Figure 39: Top 10 Reasons for Infrequent Ridership (Multiple Response) – Overall n = 442

0% 20%

FASTER DRIVING/TOO LONG 20% Customers who ride two days per week or I OWN A CAR 19% less were asked why DON'T KNOW 13% they do not ride RTA DRIVING IS FLEXIBLE 12% more frequently. The top two reasons NOT FREQUENT 12% customers cite for not NOT ON TIME/NOT RELIABLE 10% using the bus more

NOT OFFERED TO DEST. 8% often are driving is faster/bus takes too NO STOP NEAR… 8% long (20 percent) and NOT OFFERED WHEN I WANT 7% that they own a car (19

OTHER 7% percent).

Figure 40: Top 10 Reasons for Infrequent Ridership (Multiple Response) – by Segment n = 442

FASTER DRIVING/TOO LONG I OWN A CAR DON'T KNOW DRIVING IS FLEXIBLE NOT FREQUENT NOT ON TIME/NOT RELIABLE NOT OFFERED TO DEST. NO STOP NEAR HOME/WORK/DEST. NOT OFFERED WHEN I WANT OTHER 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160%

EMPLOYED 27% 20% 9% 16% 12% 9% 7% 7% 7%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 31% 15% 17% 13% 18% 10% 15% 10% 12% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 21% 27% 20% 18% 20% 10%

60+ 10% 17% 13% 15% 19% 8%

PERSONS WITH 12% 20% 10% 6% 8% 11% DISABILITIES

< 6 MONTHS 26% 20% 16% 18% 7% 10% 6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 22% 16% 10% 9% 13% 11% 10% 11% 7% 8% 3-4 YEARS 37% 24% 13% 17% 20% 16% 13% 9% 5+ YEARS 7% 18% 17% 7% 11% 8% 7% 9% 9%

37 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 109

Customers who are employed (27 percent) and college students (31 percent) similarly cite that driving is faster/bus takes too long.14 However, customers who are employed are more likely that those who are college students to cite that they own a car (20 percent and 15 percent, respectively).

Figure 41: Top 10 Reasons for Infrequent Ridership (Multiple Response) – by Service Tier n = 442 0% 20% 40%

20% 22% FASTER DRIVING/TOO LONG 19% 19% 19% 17% I OWN A CAR 15% 23% 13% 14% DON'T KNOW 12% 14% 12% 12% DRIVING IS FLEXIBLE 10% 12% 12% 9% NOT FREQUENT 16% 12% 10% 12% NOT ON TIME/NOT RELIABLE 9% 9% 8% 7% NOT OFFERED TO DEST. 6% 9% 8% NO STOP NEAR HOME/WORK/DEST. 5% 10% SYSTEM 9% 7% KEY CORRIDOR 9% NOT OFFERED WHEN I WANT 9% 3% REGIONAL/LINK 7% 6% LOCAL/FEEDER OTHER 10% 6%

Driving being faster/buses take too long is similarly common on all service tiers. However, owning a car is most commonly cited by customers riding the local/feeder routes (23 percent) whereas buses not being frequent enough is most common by riders on the regional/CommuterLink routes (16 percent) .

14 According to the Federal Highway Administration, 2017 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS), (http://nhts.ornl.gov), for the CBSA of Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, the average person trip duration (APTD) to school is 19.38 minutes by car and 16.64 minutes by bus. The APTD to work is 31.7 minutes by car and 65.65 minutes by bus. For all trip types and transit modes combined the overall APTD is 24.56 minutes.

38 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 110

Satisfaction Satisfaction Attributes Customers were asked to rate their satisfaction on 22 items and to rate their overall satisfaction with RTA using a five-point rating scale ranging from very dissatisfied to very satisfied. Ratings of 1 and 2 are grouped as dissatisfied, a rating of 3 was considered neutral, and ratings of 4 and 5 are grouped as satisfied. To allow for comparison of attributes, the mean was calculated for each one, and factors were then allocated into three tiers. Tier One attributes achieved a rating 4.0 or above. Tier Two factors received a rating of 3.72 to 3.99. Tier Three factors received ratings below 3.7.

Figure 42: Current Customer - Mean Satisfaction Ratings 0 1 2 3 4 5

OVERALL SERVICE 4.13 RIDE GUIDE BOOK 4.13 DRIVER COURTESY 4.11 TECHNOLOGY 4.05

SCHEDULE/ROUTE INFO. 3.97 SAFETY WHILE RIDING 3.95 BUSES DO NOT PASS BY 3.93 SEATS/SPACE AVAILABLE 3.92 SERVICE LOCATIONS 3.89 CLEANLINESS INSIDE BUS 3.89 STOPS NEAR DESTINATION 3.89 RTA WEBSITE 3.88 CUSTOMER INFO. CENTER 3.88 COST OF BUS FARE 3.78 WALK DISTANCE TO STOP 3.72

SAFETY AT STOPS 3.68

FREQUENCY OF SERVICE 3.65

TRAVEL TIME ON BUS 3.62

BUSES ARE ON TIME 3.59

# OF TRANSFERS ON TRIP 3.54

HOURS OF SERVICE 3.51

COST OF MONTHLY PASS 3.38

TIME WAITING FOR BUS 3.23

39 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 111

Ranked Satisfaction Attributes

Overall Satisfaction There is a high level of overall satisfaction with riders awarding a 4.13 on the five-point scale. Three quarters of riders give a satisfaction rating of 4 or above and just five percent are not satisfied.

Tier One

Figure 43: Current Customer - Top Tier Ratings

DISSATISFIED NEUTRAL SATISFIED 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

OVERALL SERVICE 5% 20% 75% 4.13

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

RIDE GUIDE BOOK 5% 22% 73% 4.13

DRIVER COURTESY 7% 21% 72% 4.11

TECHNOLOGY 8% 22% 69% 4.05

Rider satisfaction is highest with the Ride Guide, coach operator courtesy, and RTA’s use of technology such as iAlerts, Wi-Fi and BusWatch with each achieving a mean score greater than 4.

40 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 112

Tier Two Attributes that fall in the second tier rating are primarily comprised of marketing and customer-centric service attributes with mean ratings ranging between 3.72 and 3.97. Customers give high marks to communications including the availability of bus and schedule information, the customer information center, and the RTA website. Also appearing in this category are attributes reflective of customer-centric service including bus cleanliness, buses stopping for riders and the availability of seats and space. Satisfaction with service related factors such as buses going where customers travel (service locations) and bus stops being near a riders’ destination also are found in this tier.

Figure 44: Current Customer - Second Tier Ratings

DISSATISFIED NEUTRAL SATISFIED 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

SCHEDULE/ROUTE INFO. 9% 23% 68% 3.97

SAFETY WHILE RIDING 8% 26% 66% 3.95

BUSES DO NOT PASS BY 11% 22% 66% 3.93

SEATS/SPACE AVAILABLE 9% 25% 66% 3.92

SERVICE LOCATIONS 12% 24% 65% 3.89

CLEANLINESS INSIDE BUS 10% 26% 64% 3.89

STOPS NEAR DESTINATION 11% 23% 66% 3.89

RTA WEBSITE 8% 31% 61% 3.88

CUSTOMER INFO. CENTER 7% 34% 59% 3.88

COST OF BUS FARE 13% 30% 58% 3.78

WALK DISTANCE TO STOP 14% 28% 58% 3.72

Tier Three With the exception of the cost of a monthly pass, all factors that are included in tier three are service related. Mean ratings for this group all fall between 3.68 and 3.23. The lowest rating attributes were time waiting for the bus, cost of a monthly pass and hours of service. However, factors cited for improvement in the COA “service frequency” and “transfer rates” fall in the lowest tier and suggest that additional improvement is still needed to meet customer expectations.

41 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 113

Figure 45: Current Customer - Third Tier Ratings

DISSATISFIED NEUTRAL SATISFIED

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

SAFETY AT STOPS 14% 31% 55% 3.68

FREQUENCY OF SERVICE 14% 34% 52% 3.65

TRAVEL TIME ON BUS 15% 32% 53% 3.62

BUSES ARE ON TIME 18% 29% 53% 3.59

# OF TRANSFERS ON TRIP 16% 36% 48% 3.54

HOURS OF SERVICE 19% 31% 50% 3.51

COST OF MONTHLY PASS 24% 33% 43% 3.38

TIME WAITING FOR BUS 27% 33% 40% 3.23

Geographic Density of Overall Satisfaction Regardless of destination, riders likely spend the most time interacting with transit systems from their ultimate point of origin: their home. Because of this, responses to rating questions may be worthy of considering spatially in relation to home ZIP codes15.

Overall satisfaction for RTA service as a whole earned the highest average rating system-wide among other attributes rated, but has some geographic variations that can be seen at the home ZIP code level (see Figure 46: Map - High Satisfaction of Overall Service).

15 Customers’ home ZIP codes are captured by the first question within the survey. Survey weights are calculated based on known boarding counts by route. Ratings are presented as the sum of individual survey weights of customers who selected a rating response relation to the high-or low-satisfaction presented, divided by the sum of all respondent weights within the same ZIP who answered the question being presented. ZIP code sizes vary. These results should be considered directional due to sample size limitations.

42 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 114

Figure 46: Map - High Satisfaction of Overall Service

43 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 115

Likelihood to Recommend RTA Almost three-quarters (71 percent) of RTA riders Figure 47: Recommendation Likelihood – Overall n = 1,912 are likely to recommend RTA service to a friend or colleague. Non-students are more likely to say they would recommend RTA (74 percent) than NOT LIKELY students (69 percent). It follows that the higher 8% the overall rider satisfaction, the more likely they are to recommend RTA. Eighty-three percent of those who give a rating of 4 or higher would recommend RTA compared to 23 percent of NEUTRAL riders who provided a satisfaction rating of 2 or LIKELIHOOD 22% lower. Of those riders who provided a neutral TO rating (3), 39 percent would recommend RTA RECOMMEND service to a friend or colleague.

Customers who have been using the bus the VERY longest are most likely to say they would LIKELY recommend it. Of those individuals who have 71% been using RTA for at least five years, 77 percent would recommend it compared to 66 percent of riders who have been using the service for six months or less.

Figure 48: Recommendation Likelihood – by Segment n = 1,912

NOT LIKELY NEUTRAL VERY LIKELY 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EMPLOYED 8% 20% 73%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 6% 24% 70% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 10% 27% 63%

60+ 7% 14% 79%

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 11% 16% 72%

< 6 MONTHS 6% 28% 66% 6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 8% 24% 68% 3-4 YEARS 8% 24% 68% 5+ YEARS 7% 16% 77%

44 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 116

Customers who are 60 and over (79 percent) say they would be very likely to recommend RTA. High school students (63 percent) are least likely to say they would.

Figure 49: Recommendation Likelihood – by Service Tier n = 1,912

SYSTEM KEY CORRIDOR REGIONAL/LINK LOCAL/FEEDER

80% 71% 72% 72% 68% Riders on the key corridor are directionally less likely than other service 60% tiers to be very likely to recommend RTA service.

40%

24% 22% 22% 20% 20% 8% 8% 6% 8%

0% NOT LIKELY NEUTRAL VERY LIKELY

Factors that Would Encourage Riding Frequency The Gap: Service Satisfaction and Ridership Motivation Factors

Figure 50: Top 10 Most Important Factors to From a list of 17 options, Encourage Riding (Multiple Response) – Overall customers were asked to select n = 2,079 the top three factors that might 0% 20% 40% encourage them to ride RTA CHEAPER MONTHLY PASS 30% more often. Of the top 10 factors, the cost of owning a car MORE FREQ. BUS 29% and the cost of gasoline are SHORTER WAIT 29% external factors and the STOPS CLOSER TO DEST. 26% remaining eight are within RTA’s COST OF OWNING CAR 22% sphere of influence. MOBILE TICKETING 22% The top three factors are of EARLIER/LATER SERVICE 18% almost of equal importance to ARRIVE AT DEST. ON TIME 15% riders: more affordable monthly passes (30 percent), more GAS INCREASES 12% frequent bus service (29 BETTER TIMED TRANSFERS 10% percent) and shorter wait times (29 percent).

45 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 117

Figure 51: Factors to Encourage to Riding (Multiple Response) – by Segment n = 2,079

CHEAPER MONTHLY PASS MORE FREQ. BUS SHORTER WAIT STOPS CLOSER TO DEST. MOBILE TICKETING COST OF OWNING CAR EARLIER/LATER SERVICE ARRIVE AT DEST. ON TIME GAS INCREASES BETTER TIMED TRANSFERS

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 225%

EMPLOYED 29% 30% 26% 24% 25% 21% 20% 14% 14% 9%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 15% 33% 33% 30% 15% 27% 21% 20% 15% 9% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 36% 16% 42% 26% 37% 19% 14% 18%

60+ 33% 33% 16% 28% 12% 19% 12% 14% 16% 11%

PERSONS WITH 34% 28% 26% 29% 15% 16% 17% 12% 13% DISABILITIES

< 6 MONTHS 21% 30% 29% 21% 23% 23% 16% 19% 12% 9% 6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 27% 27% 29% 30% 21% 23% 17% 16% 3-4 YEARS 27% 26% 34% 27% 24% 23% 21% 17% 9% 5+ YEARS 38% 31% 26% 24% 20% 19% 18% 12% 11%

High school students (36 percent) cite the cost of a monthly pass as one of their top most important factor, compared to college/university students who are least likely to cite the same factor. The difference is likely a result of the U-Pass and Go-Pass programs, which is an all-access bus pass. For all students, time spent waiting for the bus is an important factor.

Mobile ticketing is more important to customers that are employed (25 percent) and high school students (37 percent). With RTA moving forward with mobile ticketing options, this segment is most likely to welcome the change.

46 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 118

Figure 52: Factors to Encourage to Riding (Multiple Response) – by Service Tier n = 2,079

0% 20% 40%

30% There are directional CHEAPER MONTHLY PASS 26% 27% differences among 33% 29% service tiers in factors 31% that would encourage MORE FREQ. BUS 30% 27% customers to ride more. 29% 29% Customers using the SHORTER WAIT 29% 28% local/feeder routes are 26% the most likely (33 25% STOPS CLOSER TO DEST. 25% percent) compared to 28% other service tiers to 22% select cheaper monthly MOBILE TICKETING 21% 20% passes as the most 23% 22% common factor to 23% encourage ridership. COST OF OWNING CAR 19% 22% More frequent buses are 18% 20% more commonly cited by EARLIER/LATER SERVICE 21% 14% riders on the key 15% corridor (31 percent) 16% ARRIVE AT DEST. ON TIME 20% and 12% regional/CommuterLink 12% routes (30 percent), GAS INCREASES 12% 13% which is slightly higher 11% than riders on the 10% 8% SYSTEM local/feeder routes (27 BETTER TIMED TRANSFERS 10% 10% percent). 9% KEY CORRIDOR 10% Shorter wait times is MORE TRAFFIC 11% 8% REGIONAL/LINK equally important to 8% customers regardless of 5% LOCAL/FEEDER MORE BENCHES/SHELTERS 7% service tier. 10%

47 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 119

I Would Ride More If…

Factors to Increase Riding Frequency: Ranked Customers were asked whether they disagreed, were neutral or agreed with seven different statements about factors that would result in them riding the bus more often. The highest level of agreement is with more frequent buses (64 percent), less time to make a trip (52 percent), lower cost to make a trip (44 percent) and fewer transfer (43 percent).

The factors to encourage ridership are consistent with satisfaction ratings of specific attributes. RTA rider satisfaction is also lowest among the factors that customers most strongly agree would encourage them to ride more often. Time waiting for a bus (3.23) and cost of a monthly pass (3.38) rank the lowest and are two of the top factors identified by riders that would encourage them to ride more often. Frequency of service, which also landed in the top three motivators fares slightly better in customer satisfaction (3.65), but is still in the lowest satisfaction tier.

Figure 53: I Would Ride More If… n = 1,972 – 2,043

DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

MORE FREQUENT BUSES 6% 29% 64%

LESS TIME TO MAKE TRIP 10% 38% 52%

COST LESS 11% 45% 44%

FEWER TRANSFERS 9% 48% 43%

MORE SPECIAL EVENT BUSES 12% 47% 42%

EASIER TO PLAN A TRIP 12% 47% 41%

KNEW MORE ABOUT WHERE BUS GOES 13% 47% 40%

Factors to Increase Riding Frequency: Demographic Segmentation In comparing the agreement proportions between demographic segments and factors, customers who are high school and college/university students have the most variation in agreement from the overall rates. Conversely, riders who are employed have the least amount of variation of agreement from the mean. In other words, factors which appeal to high school and college/university students may notably differ, whereas agreement by riders who are employed are reflected by the overall rate.

The most popular factor to encourage an increase in ridership is more frequent service, which earned high agreement proportions for at over half of each demographic segment. High school students (55 percent) and those 60 and over (57 percent) have the lowest proportion of customers to agree with this factor. At 69 percent, college students agree most strongly about this factor.

48 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 120

Figure 54: "Ride More If..." – More Frequent Buses – by Segment n = 1,991 DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EMPLOYED 7% 28% 65%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 26% 69% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 7% 38% 55%

60+ 6% 36% 57%

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 7% 32% 61%

< 6 MONTHS 29% 66% 6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 7% 31% 62% 3-4 YEARS 30% 65% 5+ YEARS 7% 27% 66%

Similarly, less time to make a trip is least popular among high school students (45 percent) and most popular for college/university student (57 percent)

Figure 55: "Ride More If..." – Less Time to Make Trip – by Segment n = 2,043 DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EMPLOYED 10% 38% 52%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 7% 36% 57% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 15% 40% 45%

60+ 12% 38% 51%

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 13% 34% 53%

< 6 MONTHS 11% 39% 51% 6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 11% 39% 50% 3-4 YEARS 7% 41% 52% 5+ YEARS 11% 33% 56%

49 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 121

Figure 56: "Ride More If..." – Cost Less – by Segment n = 2,005 DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EMPLOYED 11% 45% 44%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 10% 55% 34% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 13% 43% 44%

60+ 11% 53% 37%

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 10% 39% 51%

< 6 MONTHS 13% 44% 44% 6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 10% 52% 38% 3-4 YEARS 9% 48% 44% 5+ YEARS 12% 37% 51%

Of all service factors rated, lower cost has the highest degree of variation between demographic segments. Persons with access to low cost or free fares are least likely to say lower costs would encourage them to ride more often. Persons with disabilities and long-term customers of five years or more have the strongest rate of agreement (51 percent each) for this factor.

Figure 57: "Ride More If..." – Fewer Transfers – by Segment n = 2021 DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EMPLOYED 10% 48% 42%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 9% 46% 45% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 13% 43% 44%

60+ 9% 50% 41%

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 9% 47% 43%

< 6 MONTHS 11% 43% 46% 6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 9% 51% 40% 3-4 YEARS 6% 49% 45% 5+ YEARS 9% 47% 45%

50 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 122

The factor of fewer transfers has the least amount of variability between demographic segments. In other words, the overall agreement level of 43 percent closely represents each of the segments.

Figure 58: "Ride More If..." – More Special Event Buses – by Segment n = 1,972 DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EMPLOYED 12% 44% 44%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 11% 53% 35% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 15% 40% 44%

60+ 7% 49% 44%

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 12% 45% 44%

< 6 MONTHS 11% 51% 39% 6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 12% 51% 37% 3-4 YEARS 14% 49% 37% 5+ YEARS 10% 40% 50%

More special event buses is most popular among riders of five years or more (50 percent). This likely reflects their higher rate of transit dependency, as 35 percent only have the bus as their transportation option.

There is no notable difference between ridership segments for agreement on the ease of planning a trip to encourage increased ridership. However, persons with disabilities have directionally higher rates of agreement (45 percent) than the overall level of agreement at 41 percent.

51 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 123

Figure 59: "Ride More If..." – Easier to Plan Trip – by Segment n = 1,997

DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EMPLOYED 13% 45% 42%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 11% 51% 38% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 21% 45% 34%

60+ 8% 50% 41%

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 10% 45% 45%

< 6 MONTHS 13% 44% 44% 6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 10% 52% 38% 3-4 YEARS 12% 49% 38% 5+ YEARS 14% 42% 44%

Newer RTA customers of six months or less (48 percent) and those in high school (47 percent) are most likely to agree on the factor of knowing more about where the bus goes. This is expected as this demographic segment is least experienced riding RTA.

Figure 60: "Ride More If..." – Know More About Where Bus Goes – by Segment n = 2,004 DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EMPLOYED 14% 47% 39%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 11% 49% 40% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 13% 41% 47%

60+ 10% 56% 34%

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 13% 45% 42%

< 6 MONTHS 14% 38% 48% 6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 10% 50% 40% 3-4 YEARS 15% 51% 34% 5+ YEARS 15% 45% 40%

52 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 124

Fare Media & Transit Information Figure 61: Fare – Overall n = 2,099 Category of Fare Nearly half (46 percent) of customers use the MEDICARE general fare category as payment for their trip, an 1% EMPLOYEE 11 point decrease from the COA. The difference PASS OTHER VETERAN 1% 2% between the COA is distributed among all fare YOUTH/ 2% categories. CHILD 8% Students are the most likely to use passes of some GENERAL 46% type (44 percent), whereas riders who are employed are most likely to used general fare (60 SENIOR/ percent). As expected, nearly three-quarters (71 DISABLED FARE 18% percent) of riders 60 and over use senior/disabled TYPE fare, and more than half (53 percent) of customers with disabilities.

U-PASS/ GO-PASS 22%

Figure 62: Fare – by Segment n = 2,099

GENERAL U-PASS/GO-PASS SENIOR/DISABLED YOUTH/CHILD VETERAN MEDICARE CARD HOLDER EMPLOYEE PASS OTHER 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EMPLOYED 60% 20% 11%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 27% 63% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 28% 7% 62%

60+ 8% 71% 10% 5%

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 21% 11% 53% 6%

< 6 MONTHS 55% 20% 10% 10% 6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 41% 31% 10% 12% 3-4 YEARS 47% 27% 14% 8% 5+ YEARS 49% 10% 28%

53 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 125

Figure 63: Fare – by Service Tier n = 2,099 0% 20% 40% 60%

46% 46% GENERAL 44% 48%

23% 31% PASSES 22% Although general fares are most 17% common for all service tiers, 17% 14% customers on the key corridor are SEN/DIS 18% 19% generally more likely (31 percent) 8% than other service tiers to use a pass, 5% YTH/CHLD 9% by a difference beween nine to 14 10% points. 2% 2% VET 4% 2%

1% SYSTEM MEDICARE 1% 1% KEY CORRIDOR 1% 2% REGIONAL/LINK 2% OTHER 3% LOCAL/FEEDER 2%

Figure 64: Type of Fare – Overall n = 2,084

7-DAY PASS 2% TRANSFER CITYPASS FARE 1% CASH/1 3% RIDE Type of Pass/Ticket 27% Most customers (73 percent) use some form of 1-DAY PASS 17% a pass: 30-day pass (25 percent) and U- Pass/Go-Pass (25 percent), One-Day pass (17 percent). Twenty-seven percent pay a cash PASS / fare. TICKET

TYPE U-PASS/ GO-PASS 25% 30-DAY PASS 25%

54 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 126

Figure 65: Type of Fare – by Segment n = 2,084 CASH/1 RIDE 30-DAY PASS U-PASS/GO-PASS 1-DAY PASS TRANSFER FARE 7-DAY PASS CITYPASS 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EMPLOYED 30% 23% 22% 17%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 9% 6% 74% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 35% 47% 5% 11%

60+ 20% 47% 26%

PERSONS WITH 16% 38% 13% 29% DISABILITIES

< 6 MONTHS 40% 18% 20% 16% 6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 24% 21% 35% 11% 3-4 YEARS 22% 20% 34% 18% 5+ YEARS 27% 34% 12% 23%

Customers who are disabled (38 percent) and riders who are 60 and over (47 percent) most commonly use 30-day passes. These two rider segments also account for the highest frequency of 1-day passes, at 29 percent for disabled riders and 26 percent for riders 60 and over. As expected, nearly three quarters of college students (74 percent) use a U-Pass or Go-Pass, whereas nearly one-third (30 percent) of riders who are employed use a cash/1-ride fare.

As ridership duration increases, the use of 30-day passes also increases, starting from 18 percent for riders of less than six months, to a maximum of 34 percent for riders of five years or more.

55 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 127

Figure 66: Type of Fare – by Service Tier n = 2,084 0% 20% 40%

27% One-third (34 percent) of key 23% CASH/1 RIDE 32% corridor customers use a U-Pass/Go- 28% Pass whereas riders using the 25% regional/CommuterLink most 22% 30-DAY PASS 23% commonly use a cash/1-ride fare (32 28% percent). Over half (56 percent) of 25% 34% customers on local/feeder routes are U-PASS/GO-PASS 22% evenly split between use of a cash/1- 19% ride fare and a 30-day pass (28 17% 1-DAY PASS 15% percent each). 18% 18% 3% 2% TRANSFER FARE 4% 3% 2% 2% 7-DAY PASS 1% SYSTEM 2% KEY CORRIDOR 1% REGIONAL/LINK 2% CITYPASS 0% LOCAL/FEEDER 1%

56 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 128

Transit Information Tools Figure 67: Tools (Multiple Response) – Overall n = 2,061 0% 20% 40% 60%

RIDE GUIDE 42% BUS STOP SIGNS 35% WEBSITE 31% GOOGLE TRANSIT 26% BUSWATCH 12% TRANSIT APP 10% PRINTED MATERIALS 9% CUSTOMER INFO CENTER 8% RIDER NEWS/ADS ON BUS 6% IALERT EMAILS 2% SOCIAL MEDIA 2%

The Ride Guide (42 percent) is most frequently cited as the way riders’ access information about RTA suggesting that traditional transit tools remain important to customers. Just over one-third of customers depend on bus stop signs (35 percent) pointing to their importance in wayfinding and 31 percent reference the RTA website. Google Transit is used by approximately one-quarter (26 percent) of customers. Also above ten percent are BusWatch (12 percent) and the Transit App (10 percent). All other information tools are under 10 percent.

Figure 68: Tools (Multiple Response) – by Segment n = 2,061

RIDE GUIDE BUS STOP SIGNS WEBSITE GOOGLE TRANSIT BUSWATCH TRANSIT APP PRINTED MATERIALS CUSTOMER INFO CENTER RIDER NEWS/ADS ON BUS IALERT EMAILS SOCIAL MEDIA

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 225%

EMPLOYED 39% 32% 34% 31% 14%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 32% 30% 33% 40% 18% 14% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 30% 44% 29% 29% 13% 11%

60+ 70% 27% 22% 17% 20% 23% 15%

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 56% 32% 25% 16% 13% 16% 14% 15% 13%

< 6 MONTHS 26% 35% 22% 30% 11% 6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 34% 31% 32% 30% 13% 3-4 YEARS 39% 37% 32% 29% 14% 5+ YEARS 56% 37% 34% 19% 13%11% 13% 11%

57 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 129

Google Transit is most popular with university students (40 percent) while the Ride Guide is most frequently used by persons over 60. Newer riders are also more likely to use Google Transit than customers who have been riding the bus for five or more years.

Figure 69: Tools (Multiple Response) – by Service Tier n = 2,061

0% 20% 40% 60%

42% 33% RIDE GUIDE 46% 45% 35% 35% BUS STOP SIGNS 33% 36% 31% 29% WEBSITE 35% 31% 26% 28% GOOGLE TRANSIT 21% 27% 12% 15% BUSWATCH 11% 12% 10% 12% TRANSIT APP 9% 10% 9% 8% PRINTED MATERIALS 10% 9% 8% 7% CUSTOMER INFO CENTER 12% 7% 6% 5% RIDER NEWS/ADS ON BUS 6% SYSTEM 7% 2% KEY CORRIDOR 3% IALERT EMAILS 3% 2% REGIONAL/LINK 2% 2% LOCAL/FEEDER SOCIAL MEDIA 2% 1%

58 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 130

Figure 70: Smartphone – Overall n = 2,038

NO Smartphone Ownership 17% The vast majority of RTA customers own a smartphone (83 percent). Customer segments with the lowest rates of smartphone ownership are persons with disabilities (70 percent) and riders 60 and older (54 percent). SMARTPHONE OWNERSHIP Students and persons are employed are most likely to have a smartphone.

YES 83%

Figure 71: Smartphone – by Segment n = 2,038

YES NO

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EMPLOYED 89% 11%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 95% 5% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 89% 11%

60+ 54% 46%

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 70% 30%

< 6 MONTHS 89% 11% 6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 88% 12% 3-4 YEARS 89% 11% 5+ YEARS 74% 26%

59 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 131

Figure 73: Smartphone – by Service Tier n = 2,038

100% SYSTEM 83% 86% 84% 81% KEY CORRIDOR 80% REGIONAL/LINK 60% LOCAL/FEEDER

40% 17% 16% 19% 20% 14%

0% YES NO

Figure 72: Driver's License – Overall n = 2,032 YES 41% Demographics Driver’s License The majority of RTA customers (59 percent) do not have a driver’s license. DRIVER

Customers who are least likely to have a license are high school LICENSE students (90 percent), college students (62 percent) and persons with disabilities (58 percent). NO 59%

Figure 74: Driver's License – by Segment n = 2,032

YES NO 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EMPLOYED 47% 53%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 38% 62% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 10% 90%

60+ 60% 40%

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 42% 58%

< 6 MONTHS 45% 55% 6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 37% 63% 3-4 YEARS 38% 62% 5+ YEARS 44% 56%

60 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 132

Figure 75: Driver's License – by Service Tier n = 2,032

SYSTEM KEY CORRIDOR REGIONAL/LINK LOCAL/FEEDER 80%

59% 60% 61% Customers on the regional/CommuterLink are 60% 56% slightly more likely to have a driver’s license (44 44% percent) than the other service tiers. 41% 40% 39% 40%

20%

0% YES NO

Figure 76: Persons with Disability – Overall Persons with Disabilities n = 2,002 Twenty percent of customers consider themselves to have a disability. YES Customers with disabilities are more likely to be 20% long-term customers, having been an RTA customer for five years or more (33 percent). Over half (52 percent) of customers 60 and older consider themselves to have a disability. A DISABILITY significantly smaller percentage of students (12 percent) and persons who are employed (13 percent) also consider themselves to have a disability.

NO 80%

61 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 133

Figure 77: Persons with Disability – by Segment n = 2,002

YES NO 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EMPLOYED 13% 87%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 13% 87% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 4% 96%

60+ 52% 49%

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 100%

< 6 MONTHS 11% 89% 6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 12% 88% 3-4 YEARS 18% 82% 5+ YEARS 33% 67%

Figure 78: Persons with Disability – by Service Tier n = 2,002

SYSTEM KEY CORRIDOR REGIONAL/LINK LOCAL/FEEDER 100% 82% 80% 78% 80% Persons with disabilities are equally likely to use 80% all service tiers.

60%

40%

22% 20% 18% 20% 20%

0% YES NO

62 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 134

Figure 79: Employment Status – Overall Employment Status n = 1,987 Over half (53 percent) of RTA customers say they are employed either full-time or part-time which EMPLOYED 53% is down from 70 percent in the COA. However, individuals who are of working age (25-64 years) are 50 percent which is similar to the 48 percent noted in 2013. WORK Approximately one-third (34 STATUS percent) of riders with a disability are employed and 29 percent of UNEMPLOYED riders who are 60 and over are also 47% employed. College and university students are equally likely to be employed as not. High school students are least likely to say they work.

Figure 80: Employment Status – by Segment n = 1,987

EMPLOYED UNEMPLOYED

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EMPLOYED 100%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 50% 50% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 20% 80%

60+ 29% 71%

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 34% 66%

< 6 MONTHS 54% 46% 6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 51% 49% 3-4 YEARS 56% 44% 5+ YEARS 53% 47%

63 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 135

Figure 81: Employment Status – by Service Tier n = 1,987

SYSTEM KEY CORRIDOR

REGIONAL/LINK LOCAL/FEEDER

60% 56% 53% 54% 50% 50% 47% 46% 44%

40%

20%

0% EMPLOYED UNEMPLOYED

Figure 82: Student Status – Overall Student Status n = 1,981 Students (48 percent) make up almost half of all RTA customers which is virtually unchanged from 46 percent in 2013. This is consistent with PART-TIME NOT A the 41 percent of riders who are 16 to 24 years 12% STUDENT 52% old.

Thirty-seven percent of customers who are employed are also students, as are 30 percent of customers with disabilities. STUDENT Newer customers who have been riding for two STATUS years or less are more likely to be students than customers of three years or more (62 percent vs 38 percent). FULL-TIME 36%

64 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 136

Figure 83: Student Status – by Segment n = 1,981

NOT A STUDENT FULL-TIME STUDENT PART-TIME STUDENT

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EMPLOYED 63% 25% 12%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 73% 27% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 92% 8%

60+ 91% 6%

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 70% 18% 12%

< 6 MONTHS 48% 38% 14% 6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 38% 52% 10% 3-4 YEARS 44% 44% 12% 5+ YEARS 71% 16% 13%

Figure 84: Student Status – by Service Tier n = 1,981

SYSTEM KEY CORRIDOR REGIONAL/LINK LOCAL/FEEDER Customers on the key corridor are 57% nine points more likely than 60% 54% 52% local/feeder riders to be students, and 45% 44% 12 points more likely than

40% 36% regional/CommuterLink customers 31% 33% which is consistent with the key trip generators on these lines, most 20% notably UCR. 12% 11% 12% 13%

0% NOT A STUDENT FULL-TIME PART-TIME

65 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 137

Figure 85: School Type – Overall School Type n = 1,982 The majority of customers who are students attend a university (22 percent) or community OTHER SCHOOL college (47 percent). Twenty three percent are 8% high school students. HIGH SCHOOL High school students are more likely to have 23% been riding RTA buses for less than six months (25 percent) and six months to two years (25 percent) than the longer ridership durations. SCHOOL University and college students are more likely to be customers of longer durations, of three to TYPE four years (52 percent) and five years or more COM. (52 percent). COLLEGE 47% UNIVERSITY 22%

Figure 86: School Type – by Segment n = 900

HIGH SCHOOL UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY COLLEGE OTHER SCHOOL 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EMPLOYED 10% 29% 56% 5%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 31% 69% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 100%

60+ 14% 68% 18%

PERSONS WITH 7% 14% 67% 12% DISABILITIES

< 6 MONTHS 25% 20% 44% 11% 6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 25% 25% 45% 5% 3-4 YEARS 20% 23% 52% 6% 5+ YEARS 19% 15% 52% 14%

66 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 138

Figure 87: School Type – by Service Tier n = 900

SYSTEM KEY CORRIDOR REGIONAL/LINK LOCAL/FEEDER

60% 54%

47% 48% 44% University students are more likely to use key 37% 40% corridor services. High

29% school and community 26% college students are more 23% 22% evenly distributed 20% throughout the system. 14% 14% 12% 12% 8% 5% 6%

0% HIGH SCHOOL UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY OTHER SCHOOL COLLEGE

Age Figure 88: Age – Overall n = 1,627 Over half (56 percent) of RTA customers are in their 20s or younger. These younger riders are also 60+ most likely to be students (87 percent) or 10% <20 employed (54 percent). 20% 50s Persons sixty-five and older, as a proportion of 10% riders has doubled, (6 percent compared to 3 percent) since the last study was conducted. This is likely a function of two factors, the increasing 40s AGE percentage of persons in the population who are 10% 65 or over coupled with a higher likelihood that these individuals may have a disability which prevents them from driving. 30s 13% 20s The percentage of customers 15 and under is three 36% percent, on-par with the previous study.

67 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 139

Figure 89: Age – by Segment n = 1,627

<20 20s 30s 40s 50s 60+

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EMPLOYED 9% 45% 16% 12% 12% 6%

STUDENT - COL./UNV. 22% 64% 7% STUDENT - HIGH SCHOOL 95% 5%

60+ 100%

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 5% 18% 14% 13% 24% 26%

< 6 MONTHS 30% 35% 14% 5% 9% 7% 6 MONTHS-2 YEARS 28% 38% 10% 11% 6% 7% 3-4 YEARS 17% 51% 11% 8% 7% 6% 5+ YEARS 9% 29% 16% 12% 17% 17%

Customers in their 20s make up the largest proportion (44 percent) on the key corridor. Riders in their 50s (14 percent) and older (13 percent) make up the largest proportions on the regional/CommuterLink services.

Figure 90: Age – by Service Tier n = 1,627

SYSTEM KEY CORRIDOR REGIONAL/LINK LOCAL/FEEDER 60%

44%

40% 36% 33%32%

20% 20% 22% 20% 16% 13% 13% 14% 14% 13% 11% 10% 10% 11% 10% 10% 10% 11% 9% 9% 7%

0% <20 20s 30s 40s 50s 60+

68 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 140

Figure 91: Ethnicity – Overall Ethnicity n = 2,026 The proportion of individuals who identify themselves PACIFIC as Latino or Hispanic has increased from 37 percent to ISLANDER 41 percent while the percentage of riders who identify 1% NATIVE AM. OTHER themselves as White has declined to 17 percent from 3% 1% ASIAN 22 percent since 2013. By comparison 49 percent of 7% Riverside County population is Latino16. There is no MULTI- HISPANIC/ measurable change in any other group. RACIAL LATINO 10% 41%

ETHNICITY

WHITE 17% Figure 92: Ethnicity – by Service Tier n = 2,026 0% 20% 40% 60% BLACK 21% 41% 42% HISPANIC/LATINO 38% 42% 21% 20% BLACK 18% 22% 17% 16% WHITE 24% 16% 10% 10% MULTI-RACIAL 9% 10% 7% 9% ASIAN 7% 5% 3% 1% NATIVE AM. 2% 4% 1% SYSTEM 1% PACIFIC ISLANDER 1% KEY CORRIDOR 1% REGIONAL/LINK 1% 2% LOCAL/FEEDER OTHER 1% 1%

16 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. (2017). Hispanic or Latino Origin by Race, American Factfinder.

69 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 141

Figure 93: Language Other Than English – Overall n = 2,012 Language NO Almost half of RTA’s customers (46 percent) speak a 54% language other than English at home. Of those who speak another language, most (81 percent) speak Spanish. As a proportion of all RTA customers 35 percent speak Spanish, which is in line with 34 percent LANGUAGE of Riverside County residents overall who speak Spanish OTHER THAN at home17. Other languages, spoken at home are, ENGLISH Tagalog (two percent), Chinese (two percent) and French, Hindi, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese, each at one percent. Two percent of households speak YES American Sign Language. 46%

Figure 94: Language Other Than English – by Service Tier n = 2,012 SYSTEM KEY CORRIDOR REGIONAL/LINK LOCAL/FEEDER 80%

59% 60% 54% 55% 50% 50% Figure 95: Language – Overall 46% 45% n = 860 41% 40% JAPANESE FRENCH 1% VIETNAMESE A.S.L. 1% 1% 20% 2% HINDI KOREAN TAGALOG 1% 1% 2% 0% CHINESE NO YES 2% OTHER 9%

LANGUAGE

SPANISH 81%

17 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. (2017). Language Spoken at Home, American Factfinder.

70 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 142

Figure 96: Language – by Service Tier n = 860

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

81% SPANISH 76% 79% 85% 9% OTHER 12% 7% 8% 2% CHINESE 3% 1% 1% 2% TAGALOG 1% 4% 1% 2% A.S.L. 2% 4% 1% 1% FRENCH 1% 1% 1% 1% JAPANESE 1% 0% 1% 1% KOREAN 2% 2% 1% SYSTEM 1% HINDI 1% 0% KEY CORRIDOR 1% 1% VIETNAMESE 1% REGIONAL/LINK 0% 1% 0% LOCAL/FEEDER GERMAN 0% 1% 0%

71 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 143

Figure 97: Language Proficiency – Overall n = 736

NOT WELL AT ALL NOT WELL 5% 8% Language Proficiency Of those who speak another language, the vast majority of customers (87 percent) speak English “well” or “very well”. WELL 19% PROFICIENCY

VERY WELL 68%

Figure 98: Language Proficiency – by Service Tier n = 736 SYSTEM KEY CORRIDOR REGIONAL/LINK LOCAL/FEEDER 80% 70% 70% 68% 65%

60%

40% 21% 19% 19% 20% 16% 9% 9% 8% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5%

0% VERY WELL WELL NOT WELL NOT WELL AT ALL

Figure 99: Gender – Overall n = 1,942

MALE 53% Gender Just over half (53 percent) of RTA customers are male. GENDER Forty seven percent are female.

FEMALE 47%

72 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 144

Figure 100: Gender – by Service Tier n = 1,942

SYSTEM KEY CORRIDOR

REGIONAL/LINK LOCAL/FEEDER

80%

59% 60% 53% 52% 50% 50% 47% 48% 41% 40%

20%

0% MALE FEMALE

Figure 101: Income – Overall n = 1,706 Household Income $50K+ The vast majority of riders live in households with an 12% annual household income of less than $50,000 (88 percent vs 85 percent in 2013). More than two-thirds of RTA customers (70 percent) live in households $25K - with an annual household income of less than $49K $25,000 compared to 19 percent of Riverside County 18% INCOME residents18. The proportion of individuals living in households with annual incomes of $25,000 or less has increased to 70 percent from 63 percent in 2013. LESS THAN $25K 70%

18 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. (2017). Household Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2017 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars) using American Factfinder.

73 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 145

Figure 102: Income – by Service Tier n = 1,706 0% 20% 40%

5% 4% $75+ OR GREATER SYSTEM 6% 6% KEY CORRIDOR 7% REGIONAL/LINK 8% $50K-$74K 7% LOCAL/FEEDER 6%

8% 8% $35K-$49K 8% 9%

10% 11% $25K-$34K 9% 10%

18% 20% $15K-$24K 17% 17%

21% 20% $7,500-$14K 18% 24%

31% 30% LESS THAN $7,500 36% 29%

74 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 146

Chapter 4: Potential Customer Detailed Findings

Potential Customer Characteristics Potential customers are defined as individuals who: completed an online survey, are located within the RTA service area and who currently do not use RTA buses or who ride less than once per week. Potential customers fall into one of three groups and are referenced throughout this section as follows:

 Infrequent customers: individuals who ride a few times a year.  Previous customers: persons who used to ride the bus but no longer ride.  Individuals who never use RTA. These three potential customer categories reflect the three general strategies for increasing the customer base, namely to recruit, retain and regain. Recruitment originates from the pool of potential customers who never use RTA. Retention focuses on those who infrequently use RTA. Previous riders are the focus of regaining ridership.

Figure 103: Potential Customer Types RTA Use n = 1,568 The majority (55 percent) of potential customers say they never use RTA. Twenty- FEW nine percent say they have used RTA at TIMES/YEAR some point in the past, and 15 percent say 15% they are infrequent users, riding RTA a few times a year.

Infrequent RTA use appears to vary with age USE OF starting at 20 percent for those under 20 RTA and declining with age to 10 percent for NEVER those 60 or older. USED IT 55% USED TO USE 29%

75 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 147

Potential customers with disabilities are evenly split between those who have used RTA (51 percent) and those who never use RTA service (48 percent). By comparison of persons who do not have a disability less than half (43 percent) have used the bus.

Of students, just over half (51 percent) are infrequent riders (22 percent) or previous (31 percent) riders. Forty-eight percent of students never use RTA.

Of riders who are employed, 51 percent never ride the bus, 32 percent rode RTA previously, and 17 percent are infrequent riders.

Why Previous Riders Stopped Riding

Figure 104: Previous Riders – Reasons for No Longer Riding n = 463

0% 20% 40% 60%

BOUGHT CAR 46%

SWITCHED-CAR I HAD 34%

SWITCHED-CARPOOL 7%

MOVED/CHANGED JOBS 6%

SWITCHED-BICYCLING/WALKING 3%

OTHER 5%

Individuals who previously used RTA were asked why they stopped using the bus and almost half (46 percent) bought a car and 34 percent switched to using a car that they already had. Together this accounts for 80 percent of all lost riders.

Switching to a car that previous riders already have generally increases with age and peaks at a rate of 46 percent for those in their 50s, and 45 percent for those in their 60s.

Persons who are employed (55 percent) are more likely to buy a vehicle than those who are not employed (32 percent); while switching to car they have is also more common with persons who are unemployed (39 percent).

76 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 148

Figure 105: Previous Riders – Why Switched to Driving n = 363 0% 20% 40% PRIVACY/ 38% COMFORT OF CAR

TAKES TOO LONG 23% Reasons Previous Riders DON'T KNOW 8% Switched to Driving HOW TO PLAN The primary reasons for switching to MANY TRANSFERS 7% driving are the privacy and comfort NOT FREQUENT 6% of driving alone (38 percent), and travel by bus takes too long (23 NOT SAFE 5% percent). DOESN'T GO WHERE I NEED 4%

BEHAVIOR/ 4% HYGIENE OF OTHERS NOT COMFORTABLE 1%

NO STOP NEAR 1% HOME/WORK

Awareness of RTA Awareness of RTA is high with 80 percent unaided awareness, and 89 percent total awareness which combines those who Figure 106: Awareness of RTA n = 1,568 identified RTA without prompt as well as those who were asked directly if they had heard of RTA. POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS INFREQUENT Younger riders have a lower awareness of PREVIOUS NEVER RTA than those who are older. As is often 100% 92% the case, unaided awareness increases 90% with age, starting at 52 percent for those 80% 80% 70% under 20 and increasing to 72 percent for people in their 20s, 81 percent for people 60% in their 30s, and 84 to 88 percent for those in their 40s, 50s and older. 40%

Students (19 percent) are more likely to 18% 20% 9% 12% 11% 8% 5% be unaware of RTA than non-students 2% 2% (nine percent). Students who are not 0% employed have the highest level of UNAIDED AIDED UNAWARE unawareness at 28 percent.

77 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 149

Service & Program Awareness Awareness of RTA in general is high (89 percent). However, awareness of RTA’s specialized services is lower. The highest level of awareness (which combines potential riders who have heard of it, know how it works, and used it) is with the Dial-a-Ride at 70 percent, followed by CommuterLink at 51 percent, and RapidLink at 39 percent.

As expected, in all three cases of specialized services, namely RapidLink, CommuterLink, and Dial-a-Ride, potential customers who never use RTA are most likely not to have heard of each of those services (72 percent, 63 percent, and 40 percent, respectively.) Infrequent riders, who likely have the most exposure to RTA compared to other potential rider categories, generally have greater awareness and familiarity with services.

RapidLink

Figure 107: Awareness of RapidLink n = 1,568

NOT HEARD OF/DK HEARD OF BUT NOT FAMILIAR FAMILIAR & KNOW HOW IT WORKS FAMILIAR & USED IT

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% POTENTIAL 60% 28% 9% 3% CUSTOMERS

INFREQUENT 31% 39% 19% 11%

PREVIOUS 53% 33% 10% 3%

NEVER 72% 22% 5% 2%

Awareness of RapidLink is highest among potential customers who live in ZIP codes that are adjacent to the corridor, with awareness at 50 percent or higher.

Overall, 40 percent of potential customers are aware of RapidLink and 12 percent are familiar with it. Twenty-eight percent of potential customers say they have heard of RapidLink but are not familiar with it, nine percent say they know how it works, and three percent say they have tried it. Given RTA’s network spans 18 cities and unincorporated Riverside County, it is not surprising that 60 percent of potential customers have never heard of it, as they are not adjacent to the corridor.

Infrequent riders are most likely to be aware of (69 percent) and familiar with (30 percent) of the service. Forty-seven percent of previous riders are aware of RapidLink, and 13 percent are familiar with it.

78 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 150

Potential customers who are employed (44 percent) or students (44 percent) are more likely to be aware of the RapidLink.

Those who are familiar with RapidLink and know how it works are more likely to be under 20 (20 percent), employed (14 percent), or students (16 percent).

Figure 108: Map - Awareness of RapidLink by Home ZIP Code

CommuterLink Awareness of CommuterLink is somewhat higher, with just over half (51 percent) of potential customers being aware of it and 15 percent who are familiar with the service. Higher general awareness of CommuterLink services is expected given the routes span a wider geographic coverage.

Thirty-six percent say they have heard of CommuterLink, but are not familiar with it. Ten percent say they know how it works, and five percent say they have tried it. The remaining 49 percent say they have never heard of it.

Infrequent riders are more aware of CommuterLink (78 percent) than other potential riders, and also more commonly familiar with it (35 percent). Sixty-four percent of previous riders are aware of it and less than one-quarter (21 percent) are familiar with it.

79 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 151

Person with disabilities (60 percent) are ten points more likely than non-disabled potential customers (50 percent) to be aware of CommuterLink. However, those who are disabled are nearly equally as likely to be familiar with the service (17 percent vs 15 percent, respectively).

Just over half of student (52 percent) and employed (55 percent) potential riders are aware of the service, and in similar proportions, are familiar with it as well (20 percent and 18 percent, respectively).

Figure 109: Awareness of CommuterLink n = 1,568

NOT HEARD OF/DK HEARD OF BUT NOT FAMILIAR FAMILIAR & KNOW HOW IT WORKS FAMILIAR & USED IT

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% POTENTIAL 49% 36% 10% 5% CUSTOMERS

INFREQUENT 24% 43% 19% 16%

PREVIOUS 37% 43% 15% 6%

NEVER 63% 31% 5% 2%

Dial-A-Ride Dial-A-Ride is the most recognized RTA specialty service which is likely related to longevity of the offering.

Seventy percent of potential riders are aware of Dial-A-Ride. Forty-three percent say they have heard of it but are not familiar with it, 21 percent knowing how it works, and six percent saying they have used it at some point. Thirty percent have never heard of it.

Similar high levels of awareness existed between previous riders (83 percent) and infrequent riders (84 percent), though infrequent riders are more likely to be familiar with the service (44 percent) than previous riders (36 percent).

There is high awareness among all age categories particularly among customers who are the potential target market. Just over three-quarters of riders 60 and over (76 percent) are aware of the service. Similarly, persons with disabilities (80 percent) are more likely than those without a disability (67 percent) to be aware of the service.

80 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 152

Figure 110: Awareness of Dial-A-Ride n = 1,568

NOT HEARD OF/DK HEARD OF BUT NOT FAMILIAR FAMILIAR & KNOW HOW IT WORKS FAMILIAR & USED IT

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% POTENTIAL 30% 43% 21% 6% CUSTOMERS

INFREQUENT 16% 40% 32% 12%

PREVIOUS 18% 47% 27% 9%

NEVER 40% 42% 15% 2%

Length of Use Previous and infrequent customers were asked to identify the length of time that they used the bus. Among previous riders, over half say they only used RTA once (24 percent), or for less than six months (29 percent), and 60 percent rode less than a year before they stopped using the bus. Comparatively, nearly 60 percent of infrequent riders have been RTA customers for four years or less. This suggests that many infrequent and previous riders are likely to not have a sufficiently positive experience in their initial rides to continue using the bus. Previous riders are nearly three times more likely (22 percent) than infrequent riders (6 percent) to perceive that they do not have a bus stop near their homes.

Figure 111: Previous and Infrequent Riders - Length of Time as Rider n = 463

ONCE < 6 MONTHS 6-11 MONTHS 1-2 YRS 3-4 YRS 5+ YEARS PREVIOUS 24% 29% 7% 14% 10% 15%

INFREQUENT 14% 9% 17% 13% 42%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

81 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 153

Reason for Trying RTA

The two most common reasons previous and infrequent riders tried the bus was the lack of availability of a vehicle or not having a driver’s license. Lack of vehicle availability (34 percent) is over three times more common of a reason to try the bus than any other factor. Not having a driver’s license (10 percent) was the second factor and saving money and avoiding traffic were tied for third at eight percent each.

Current students (14 percent) are much more likely than non-students (three percent) to cite that their reason to try RTA was because it was free while they were in school.

Individuals who are 60 or older are the least likely (19 percent) of all age categories to cite not having a car, and most likely to say avoiding traffic (18 percent) was the reason they tried the bus.

Figure 112: Previous and Infrequent Riders - Reason for Trying RTA n = 702

0% 20% 40% 60%

DON'T OWN A CAR 25% 39%

NO LICENSE 8% 11%

SAVE MONEY 10% 8%

AVOID TRAFFIC 10% 6%

PRICE OF FUEL 7% 5%

FREE WHILE AT SCHOOL 6% 5%

REC FROM FAM/FRIENDS 6% 4%

SPECIAL EVENT ACCESS 4% 4% INFREQUENT CAR BROKE DOWN/ 3% VEHICLE UNAVAILABLE 4% PREVIOUS PERSONAL TIME 7% 2%

82 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 154

RTA Trip Types of Previous and Infrequent Customers

Figure 113: RTA Trip Types (Multiple Response) - Overall n = 463

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

SHOPPING 35%

SOC/REC 34% Of those who use RTA previously their trip WORK 31% purposes when they used the bus were spread relatively evenly across shopping SCHOOL 27% (33 percent), work (32 percent), ERRANDS 24% social/recreational (30 percent), and school (29 percent). SPECIAL EVENT 15% Infrequent customers are most likely to use MEDICAL/SS 12% the bus for social/recreational (41 percent) DINING 8% and shopping (38 percent).

Figure 114: RTA Trip Types (Multiple Response) - by Potential Customer Type n = 463 Previous customers who rode the 0% 20% 40% 60% bus to work are just over twice as likely as infrequent riders to say they SHOPPING 38% 33% currently do not have a bus stop SOC/REC 41% within walking distance of their 30% work/school (36 percent and 16 WORK 27% percent ). Similarly, previous riders 32% who rode the bus to school are much SCHOOL 24% more likely than infrequent riders to 29% say they do not have a bus stop ERRANDS 25% 23% within walking distance (23 percent SPECIAL EVENT 20% and nine percent). 12% MEDICAL/SS 16% 10% DINING 10% INFREQUENT 6% PREVIOUS OTHER 1% 2%

83 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 155

Figure 115: Destinations - Overall Trip Purpose of Potential Customers n = 1,568 The most common places potential riders travel are to SPECIAL work, (42 percent), followed by errands (15 percent), DINING/ COFFEE EVENT MEDICAL/ shopping (14 percent), school and social/recreational, 3% 2% SS each at 10 percent. 4% WORK Nearly three-quarters (70 percent) of persons who are SOC/REC 42% 10% employed predominantly travel to work, whereas students are most likely to be going to school (39 percent) or work (32 percent). SCHOOL 10% DESTINATIONS

Figure 116: Destinations – by Potential Customer Type n = 1,568 SHOPPING 14% 0% 20% 40% 60% ERRANDS 42% 15% WORK 30% 46% 43% 15% 8% ERRANDS 15% 17% 14% 17% SHOPPING 13% 15% Among the age categories, riders 60 10% or over are most likely to have 13% shopping (26 percent) as a SCHOOL 9% 10% destination. This is similar to 10% potential customers with a disability 16% (21 percent), who are eight points SOC/REC 8% 9% more likely than those without a 4% disability to frequent shopping 9% destinations. MEDICAL/SS 4% 3%

3% 3% DINING/COFFEE 2% 3% POTENTIAL 2% CUSTOMERS 4% INFREQUENT SPECIAL EVENT 2% 1% PREVIOUS 1% 0% OTHER 1% NEVER 1%

84 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 156

Potential Transit Changes & Competition

Figure 117: Travel Modes – Overall n = 1,568 Transportation Alternatives WALK/ Most potential customers drive alone (81 BICYCLE TRAIN TNC 2% percent). Use of a carpool/vanpool is a distant BUS 1% 3% second at nine percent. 4% CARPOOL/ Individuals who never use RTA are most likely VANPOOL to drive alone (86 percent) followed by 9% previous riders (81 percent). At 59 percent, infrequent riders have the lowest rates of solo TRAVEL driving and are more likely to ride the bus (20 MODES percent).

DRIVE ALONE 81%

Figure 118: Travel Modes – by Potential Customer Type n = 1,568

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

59% Driving alone increases with both age and DRIVE ALONE 81% income starting at 53 percent for those under 86% 20 and increasing steadily to 85 percent for CARPOOL/ 10% 12% those 40 or older. For those with an income VANPOOL 8% below $7,500, half (52 percent) drive alone, but this grows to 90 percent for those with an 20% income of $75,000 or higher. BUS 2% 1%

Carpool/vanpool is twice as common for 7% potential customers with a disability (16 TNC 3% percent) than those without (eight percent). 2% Students (16 percent) are also more likely than WALK/ 3% INFREQUENT non-students (eight percent) to 2% BICYCLE carpool/vanpool. 2% PREVIOUS 1% TRAIN 1% NEVER 0%

85 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 157

Figure 119: Travel Time for Most Common Trip n = 1,568 0% 20% 40% 60%

25% 0-14 MINS 17% 24% 27% Travel Minutes Almost three quarters of potential riders (71 46% percent) travel 30 minutes or less to reach 15-30 MINS 49% 47% their most common destination. Infrequent 45% riders generally travel longer than other 13% potential customers with 35 percent of their 31-59 MINS 13% POTENTIAL 14% CUSTOMERS trips being longer than 30 minutes. 14% INFREQUENT

15% PREVIOUS 60+ MINS 22% 15% NEVER 14%

Figure 120: RTA Use in Past Year n = 1,505 INFREQUENT PREVIOUS 100% 84% 80% RTA Use in Past Year 69% Eighty-four percent of infrequent riders have taken at least one trip on an RTA bus within the last year. 60%

By comparison almost one third of previous cutomers 40% 32% used the bus at least once in the past 12 months. 16% 20%

0% YES NO

86 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 158

Travel Minutes if by Bus

Potential customers were Figure 121: Travel Minutes by Bus asked to estimate the time it n = 1,505 would take to travel to the 0% 20% 40% place they go most often if they 24% were to make the trip by bus. 30 MIN OR LESS 30% Infrequent riders (60 percent) 29% 21% could reach their desination in one hour or less, compared to 25% 55 percent of previous riders, 31-60 MINS 30% 26% and 44 percent of individuals 23% who never use the bus. 17% 61-90 MINS 19% Not surprisingly, among 20% potential customer segments, 14% those who never ride RTA have 9% the highest proportion of not 91-120 MINS 8% 10% being able to estimate how 8% long their trip would take (16 8% percent) by bus. This group is 120+ MINS 8% also most likely to state that 8% 9% POTENTIAL the trip would not be possible CUSTOMERS to make using the bus (nine 11% INFREQUENT percent). By comparison just DON'T KNOW 3% 7% seven percent of previous 16% PREVIOUS riders, and three percent of 6% infrequent riders are unsure of NEVER NOT POSSIBLE 1% if they could make the trip or 2% 9% how long it would take by bus.

Potential customers who are 60 and over (19 percent), have a disability (14 percent), are unemployed (16 percent) are least likely to know how long it would take to reach their destination by transit.

The awareness of a bus stop is a factor in whether or not potential customers state it is not possible to make the trip by bus. Potential customers who state it is not possible to make the trip are also nine points more likely to say there is no bus stop, that they know of, that is in walking distance of their home (11 percent).

87 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 159

Consider Riding More/Again/Start

Figure 122: Consideration of Riding More, Again, or Try Riding - Overall n = 1,568

YES 57% There is a high level of willingness to consider riding again among previous riders (76 percent) and to ride more frequently among infrequent riders (75 percent). CONSIDER Even among those who never use RTA, 42 percent say RIDING they would consider riding the bus.

NO 43%

Figure 123: Consideration of Riding More, Again, or Try Riding - by Potential Customer Type n = 1,568

Potential customers 60 and over are virtually INFREQUENT PREVIOUS NEVER evenly split between willingness to consider riding again or increase transit use (48 80% 75% 76% percent) and not (52 percent). Sixty-one 58% percent of students and 60 percent of 60% employed potential customers say they would 42% consider riding the bus. Potential customers 40% with a disability (64 percent) are most willing 25% 23% of all segments to try/increase use of the bus. 20%

. 0% CONSIDER NOT RIDING CONSIDER

88 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 160

Factors That Encourage Riding the Bus Improved service frequency (24 percent) is the most commonly cited factor potential customers say would encourage them to ride the bus more often. This is followed by needing to make fewer transfers (22 percent) to complete the trip and an expanded span of service (18 percent). At a lower level, increased safety and better control of rider behavior and hygiene were each cited by 11 percent of potential customers.

While the privacy and comfort of a personal car is the primary barrier to riding, improvement of comfort on the bus is listed by just five percent of potential customers, indicating that RTA is doing a good job of meeting the majority of riders on this performance factor.

Figure 124: Factors That Would Encourage Riding the Bus n = 903

0% 20% 40%

24% INCREASE FREQUENCY 27% 26% 21% 22% FEWER/NO TRANSFERS 16% 20% 27% 18% EXPAND SPAN 22% 19% 15% 11% INCREASE SAFETY 13% 9% 12% CONTROLLING 11% BEHAVIOR/ 12% 10% HYGIENE OF OTHERS 11% 5% IMPROVE COMFORT 7% 4% 4% POTENTIAL 2% CUSTOMERS NO OTHER TRANSPORT 0% 4% INFREQUENT 2% 2% PREVIOUS CLOSER STOPS TO 0% HOME/DEST 2% 3% NEVER 6% OTHER 3% 7% 5%

89 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 161

Figure 125: Reasons for Not Riding the Bus n = 665

0% 20% 40%

30% PRIVACY/COMFORT OF 17% CAR 25% 32% 18% 20% TAKES TOO LONG 18% 17% 10% NO STOP NEAR 9% HOME/WORK 6% 11% 9% DOESN'T GO WHERE I 9% NEED 8% 9% 6% 4% NOT SAFE 10% 6% 5% 2% MAKE OTHER TRIPS 6% 5% 4% BEHAVIOR/HYGIENE OF 4% OTHERS 6% 3% 4% NOT AVAILABLE WHEN 4% NEEDED 6% 3% POTENTIAL 3% CUSTOMERS 11% MANY TRANSFERS 3% INFREQUENT 3% 3% PREVIOUS DROPOFF/PICKUP 2% CHILD 5% 3% NEVER 3% 4% NOT COMFORTABLE 1% 3%

Factors Cited for Not Riding the Bus The two most commonly cited factors for not using the bus are potential customers enjoy the privacy and comfort of private cars (30 percent), and trips take too long by bus (18 percent). Other high impact factors that may be real or only perceived are: no bus stop near potential customers’ home/destinations (10 percent), and that the buses do not go where they need to go (nine percent), which is essentially the same thing. Other factors cited are not feeling safe (six percent) and make other trips as part of the commute (five percent).

90 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 162

Concerns regarding behavior/hygiene of others is most common with previous (six percent) and infrequent (four percent) riders. Buses not being available when needed is most common with previous riders (six percent) while infrequent riders most commonly cite that a trip takes too many transfers (11 percent).

Potential customers who are 60 and over are the least likely (13 percent) among the other age groups to say the trip by bus takes too long. They are also most likely (19 percent) to cite that there is no stop near their home/work destination.

Potential customers who are employed (20 percent) are more likely to think it takes too long to make a trip by bus than those who are unemployed (14 percent).

Figure 126: Vehicle Availability – Overall n = 1,568 Vehicles and TNCs NEVER 5% Vehicle Availability SOMETIMES Vehicle availability is consistent with potential 10% riders’ use of RTA in general, as driving is a preferred means of transportation. Over three quarters of potential customers who never ride RTA always have access to a vehicle to USUALLY VEHICLE 17% make the trip compared to less than half (43 AVAILABILITY percent) of infrequent riders. Sixty-four percent of previous riders have access to a vehicle. ALWAYS Vehicle availability varies with the age of the 68% potential rider with only 30 percent of those under the age of 20 having access to a vehicle compared to 86 percent of those 60 and older. Annual household income is also a predictor of vehicle availability. Of households with an annual income of $7,500 or less 37 percent have access to a vehicle compared to 87 percent of households where the annual income is $75,000 or more.

Figure 127: Vehicle Availability – by Potential Customer Type Half of potential riders with a disability n = 1,568 (56 percent) always have access to a vehicle, compared to 70 percent for INFREQUENT PREVIOUS NEVER those who do not have disability. 100% 77% At 73 percent, potential customers 80% 64% who are employed are the most likely 60% to always have a car available, and 43% over half (52 percent) of students have 40% 30% some access to a car. However, just 21% 21% over one quarter (27 percent) of 20% 11% 10% 6% 6% 5% 5% students usually have access to a car. 0% ALWAYS USUALLY SOMETIMES NEVER

91 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 163

Impact of TNCs & Ride Hailing Frequency Use of TNCs is common but infrequent. At 47 percent, almost half of potential customers have Figure 128: Ride Hailing/TNC Use used Uber or Lyft, but only nine percent use a n = 1,568 TNC at least once a week or more with 17 percent saying a few times per month, and 74 percent POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS INFREQUENT saying less than once a month. PREVIOUS NEVER 80% Potential customers who are under the age of 20 62% are most likely (14 percent) to use TNCs at least 57% 60% 53% 52% once a week. Potential customers who identify as 47% 48% 43% Black are also more than twice as likely (18 38% 40% percent) as Hispanics (eight percent) and eight points more likely than White riders to use TNCs at this higher frequency. 20%

Student and persons who are employed use TNCs 0% most frequently, however frequency of use is YES NO generally low. Twelve percent of students and eleven percent of persons who are employed use a ride hailing service at least once a week.

Figure 129: Ride Hailing Frequency n = 743

POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS INFREQUENT PREVIOUS NEVER

100% 81% 80% 74% 71% 60% 60%

40% 27% 17% 21% 20% 12% 9% 5% 3% 5% 4% 4% 5% 3% 0% < 1/MONTH FEW AT LEAST 2+/WEEK TIMES/MONTH ONCE/WEEK

92 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 164

Figure 130: Ride Hailing Relationship Ride Hailing Relationship to RTA to RTA n = 743

Over two-thirds (71 percent) also POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS INFREQUENT PREVIOUS NEVER indicate that their use of TNCs has 100% no impact on riding RTA buses. About one quarter (24 percent) 78% 80% 71% say it reduces their ridership and 61% 64% six percent say it increases 60% ridership. Given the low frequency of use and the majority 40% 28% 30% saying it has no impact, it is likely 24% 18% that TNCs is not a significant 20% 12% factor. 6% 6% 3% 0% NO IMPACT ON USE DECREASES INCREASES

Physical Boundaries

Bus Stops Near Home A key factor in use of RTA is real and/or perceived lack of access to service. Although over half (55 percent) of all potential customers say they have a bus stop within walking distance of their home, the percentage of those who never use RTA has the lowest rate of access, at 42 percent. Forty-five percent of potential customers either do not have, or do not know of, a bus stop within walking distance of their home.

Figure 131: Bus Stops Near Home n = 1,568 Potential customers who are 60 and POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS INFREQUENT older (57 percent) are more likely PREVIOUS NEVER than other age categories to think 100% there is not a bus stop or not know 82% if there is one within walking 80% distance. Over half (53 percent) of 65% potential customers who are white 55% 60% think there is not a stop within 42% walking distance compared to one 40% 35% 30% 27% third of persons who are Hispanic. 23% 16% 20% 15% 8% 2% 0% STOP WITHIN NO STOP DON'T WALKING WITHIN WALKING KNOW DISTANCE DISTANCE

93 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 165

Bus Stops Near Work/School Potential riders who have a stop near Figure 132: Bus Stops Near Work/School home were also asked if they have a n = 859 stop near their work or school POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS INFREQUENT locations. More than half (58 percent) PREVIOUS NEVER of those with stops near their home 100% say they have a bus stop near work or 80% 70% school. Potential customers who never 64% 58% use RTA were least likely to know of a 60% 47% bus stop in proximity to their work or 37% 40% school location (47 percent). 28% 25% 16% 17% 20% 14% 14% 12% Nearly all students (96 percent) who have a stop in walking distance of their 0% home also have a stop in walking STOP WITHIN NO STOP DON'T distance of their school. Nearly three WALKING WITHIN WALKING KNOW quarters (70 percent) of those who are DISTANCE DISTANCE employed also have a stop in walking distance of their work.

RTA Work/School Trip Feasibility

Figure 133: RTA Work/School Trip Feasibility Overall only 29 percent of potential n = 1,568 customers say they can make their work/school trips using RTA. However, POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS INFREQUENT there is wide variation between the PREVIOUS NEVER 80% potential customer segments.

Over half (56 percent) of infrequent riders 56% 60% can reach work or school using the bus, 47% 41% followed by 41 percent of previous riders. 40% 38% 40% 33% Just 15 percent of those who never ride the 29% 31% 25% 26% bus say it is an option for school or work. 19% 20% 15% At 45 percent, potential customers who are students are more likely than those who 0% are employed (33 percent) to be able to CAN MAKE CANNOT DON'T KNOW make their trips to work or school. TRIP MAKE TRIP

Service Expansion – Geographic Distribution Potential customers were asked if there is a place that is not currently being adequately serviced by RTA. The vast majority (86 percent) of people say there is not, whereas 14 percent say there is.

Of the 14 percent of potential riders who said yes, points were mapped to visualize the requests. Locations with high point density are clustered in Temecula, Murrieta, Perris, Eastvale, and Riverside.

94 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 166

Figure 134: Map - Locations Where Potential Customers Want More Service

95 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 167

Service Enhancement Trade-Off Analysis In addition to asking potential customers what would make them more likely to ride more, again or to start riding, they were asked to make trade-offs between seven potential enhancements using a technique known as MaxDiff analysis. This approach asks respondents to prioritize one enhancement over another providing more of a real-world decision-making experience of what would encourage them to try, or increase riding the bus. Respondents are presented with seven different scenarios where they rank three of the seven enhancement attributes from greatest to least impact on ridership. The trade-offs are rotated so that they are evenly balanced against each other, and the results are converted into a score of 1-7, where a score of 1 indicates that the specific was ranked last in all scenarios, and a score of 7 indicates that it was ranked first (greatest impact on ridership) in all scenarios.

The top three factors Figure 135: Potential Service Enhancements highlight the value of n = 1,568 decreasing travel time, with 0 1 2 3 4 5 increased direct service having the greatest average 4.64 impact on ridership at 4.64, Increased direct service 4.40 followed by expanded where I need to go 4.51 4.77 RapidLink service at 4.56, and buses every 15 minutes Expanded Rapid 4.56 for most routes at 4.28. The 4.31 service; cut travel 4.50 other four factors drop by time by 30 percent 4.66 almost a half point or more with improved bus stops 4.28 with more shelters, benches Buses every 15 minutes 4.38 on most routes 4.24 and lighting receiving the 4.26 highest score in the lower tier at 3.80. Improved bus stops 3.80 3.94 (more shelters, Of the average ratings 3.78 between each of the benches lighting) 3.78 potential rider groups, those Expanded service 3.74 who never ride RTA have the 3.99 (early morning, highest average rating (4.77) 3.93 for increasing direct service, late night, weekend) 3.58 compared to the low of 4.40 New transit option 3.71 POTENTIAL for infrequent riders. This 3.51 with small vehicles CUSTOMERS relationship is also true for 3.72 INFREQUENT the second highest impact (ex: Uber-Pool rideshare) 3.74 enhancement, where those PREVIOUS Mobile ticketing; 3.28 who never ride have an 3.42 purchase and average rating of 4.66 3.32 NEVER pay with a smartphone 3.22 compared to infrequent riders at 4.31.

96 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 168

The largest gap in average ratings between potential rider groups is for expanded services, where infrequent (3.99) and previous (3.93) riders have a .41 rating difference compared to those who never ride (3.58), who feel less strongly about the option.

RTA’s Impact on the Community Potential customers were also asked to rate their agreement about RTA’s impact on the community using a five-point scale where 1 equates to “Strongly Disagree” and 5 equates to “Strongly Agree.” “Public transit is important to the community” received the strongest level of agreement with an average score of 4.19.

The other two statements received significantly lower levels of agreement, with “Public transit is an important contributor to achieving environmental goals in the community” receiving an average agreement score of 3.89, and “RTA provides a viable alternative to the private automobile” receiving the lowest average score of 3.75. It is possible that the perceived environmental average of transit compared to driving alone is lessening as the availability of high MPG and electric vehicles continues to increase.

Figure 136: Community Impacts n = 1,568 0 1 2 3 4 5

Public Transit Is 4.19 4.21 Important in 4.26 the Community 4.14

Public Transit is an 3.89 3.94 Important Contributor to POTENTIAL 3.95 Achieving Environmental Goals CUSTOMERS 3.85 INFREQUENT

RTA Provides a 3.75 PREVIOUS 3.92 Viable Alternative to the 3.77 NEVER Private Automobile 3.69

The third community impact statement has the greatest degree of variance between the potential customer groups; infrequent riders’ average rating is the highest (3.92) compared to those who never ride (3.69). This may be due to the fact that these individuals already have experience with the system and are already using it as an alternative to driving.

97 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 169

Satisfaction

Satisfaction Attributes Satisfaction was rated for RTA overall and for several individual performance factors on a five-point scale where 1 is anchored with “Very Poor” and 5 is anchored with “Very Good.” RTA received an overall score of 3.76 on this scale. The individual performance factor ratings are presented in the following chart ranging from a high average score of 3.93 for driver courtesy, to a low of 3.19 for walking distance to stops.

Figure 137: Satisfaction Averages

0 1 2 3 4 5

OVERALL SATISFACTION 3.76

DRIVER COURTESY 3.93

RTA CUSTOMER SERVICE 3.73

BUSES BEING ON TIME 3.64

HOURS OF OPERATION 3.52

FREQUENCY OF SERVICE 3.49

CLEANLINESS INSIDE BUS 3.48

SAFETY WHILE RIDING/WAITING 3.47

BUSES GO WHERE I NEED TO GO 3.44

RTA ADVERTISING 3.34

TRAVEL TIME ON BUS 3.23

TIME SPENT WAITING FOR BUS 3.21

WALKING DISTANCE TO STOPS 3.19

There are three tiers of performance. driver courtesy, RTA customer service and buses being on time are in the top tier with a minimum average score of 3.64. In the middle tier, from high to low, hours of operation, frequency of service, cleanliness inside buses, safety while riding/waiting, and buses going where I need to go were 3.44 or higher. In the bottom tier, RTA advertising, travel time on the bus, time spent waiting for the bus, and walking distance to stops were all at or below 3.34.

98 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 170

Figure 138: Top Tier Ratings - by Potential Customer Type n = 1,568

0 1 2 3 4 5

4.08 OVERALL SATISFACTION 3.83 3.55

4.23 DRIVER COURTESY 3.98 3.68

4.09 RTA CUSTOMER SERVICE 3.79 3.41 INFREQUENT PREVIOUS 3.88 BUSES BEING ON TIME 3.66 NEVER 3.46

For each individual satisfaction attribute, infrequent riders consistently have a higher average score than either of the other two potential rider categories. The largest rating gap is between infrequent riders (3.81) and those who have never use RTA (3.07) for buses going where they need to go, at a difference of .74.

Figure 139: Second Tier Ratings - by Potential Customer Type n = 1,568 0 1 2 3 4 5

3.61 HOURS OF OPERATION 3.50 3.47

3.78 FREQUENCY OF SERVICE 3.50 3.33

3.79 CLEANLINESS INSIDE BUS 3.57 3.20

SAFETY WHILE 3.7 3.56 INFREQUENT RIDING/WAITING 3.27 PREVIOUS BUSES GO WHERE 3.81 3.60 I NEED TO GO NEVER 3.07

99 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 171

Figure 140: Third Tier Ratings - by Potential Customer Type n = 1,568

0 1 2 3 4 5

3.64 RTA ADVERTISING 3.42 3.12

3.67 TRAVEL TIME ON BUS 3.25 2.96

TIME SPENT WAITING 3.58 3.19 FOR BUS 2.99 INFREQUENT PREVIOUS WALKING DISTANCE 3.61 3.25 TO STOPS NEVER 2.95

Figure 141: Driver's License Demographics n = 1,568

Driver’s License POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS INFREQUENT The vast majority (88 percent) of potential riders have a driver’s license. Infrequent riders are less likely (80 100% 88% 87% 91% 80% percent) than those who never use RTA (91 percent) to 80% have a license. 60% Three-quarters of students (75 percent) and nearly all 40% potential customers who are employed (96 percent) have 20% 20% 12% 13% 9% a license. 0% DRIVER LICENSE NO LICENSE Figure 142: Persons with a Disability n = 1,568

POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS INFREQUENT PREVIOUS NEVER Persons with a Disability 100% 85% 87% 80% 84% Fifteen percent of potential customers consider 80% themselves to have a disability. Infrequent riders 60% are more likely (20 percent) than other groups to say they have a disability. 40% 20% 15% 16% 20% 13%

0% YES NO

100 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 172

Figure 143: Employment n = 1,568

Employment POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS INFREQUENT PREVIOUS NEVER Potential customers are more likely to be 80% employed (55 percent) than not. Those who are 61% 61% infrequent riders and previous riders are most 60% 55% 51% 49% likely to be employed, each at 61 percent. 45% 39% 39% 40%

20%

Figure 144: Student Status 0% n = 1,568 EMPLOYED NOT EMPLOYED POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS INFREQUENT PREVIOUS NEVER 100% 81% 80% 83% 80% 72% Student Status Nineteen percent of potential riders are students. 60% Infrequent riders are more likely to be students (28 percent) compared to the other potential customer 40% 28% 19% 20% 17% groups. 20%

0% STUDENT NON-STUDENT

School Type Of the 19 percent of potential customers who are students, 88 percent are enrolled in post high school educational institutions.

Figure 145: School Type n = 308

POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS INFREQUENT PREVIOUS NEVER

60% 46% 46% 42% 39% 40% 36% 36% 35% 36%

20% 13% 12% 10% 10% 6% 6% 7% 6% 4% 4% 4% 3% 0% HIGH SCHOOL COMMUNITY UNIVERSITY TRADE/ OTHER COLLEGE TECHNICAL SCHOOL

101 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 173

Figure 146: Age n = 1,568 5% UNDER 7% 20 5% 5% 24% Age 20s 31% 27% The average age for surveyed potential riders is 43.1. 20% Those who never use RTA are slightly older with an 19% average of 45.9, whereas infrequent riders’ and 30s 17% previous riders’ mean ages skew younger at 39.3 and 26% 16% 39.7, respectively. 16% 40s 17% 16% 16% POTENTIAL 14% CUSTOMERS INFREQUENT 50s 14% 14% PREVIOUS 14% 22% NEVER Figure 147: Ethnicity 60+ 14% n = 1,568 12% 0% 20% 40% 60% 29%

44% 0% 20% 40% 34% WHITE 36% 51%

39% 49% HISPANIC 47% 31% 5% BLACK 6% 7% Ethnicity 4% The two most common ethnicities for 5% potential customers are white (44 percent) ASIAN 5% 4% and Hispanic (39 percent). Those who are 6% black and Asian comprise five percent of the 4% potential customers, while multiracial MULTIRACIAL 5% 4% composes four percent. 4% 1% 2% AM INDIAN 1% POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS 1% 1% INFREQUENT 0% PAC ISL 0% PREVIOUS 2% NEVER 1% 1% OTHER 1% 1%

102 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 174

Figure 148: Gender n = 1,568 POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS INFREQUENT PREVIOUS NEVER Gender 53% 54% 60% 49% 50% 51% 50% Stated gender is split relatively evenly between 45% 47% men (49 percent) and women (51 percent). 40%

20%

0% MALE FEMALE

Figure 149: Income n = 1,559 0% 20% 40% 60%

35% 23% $75K+ 28% 42% 18% Household Income $50K-$74K 15% Approximately half of potential 20% customers (53 percent) live in 18% household with an annual income of 13% 16% $50,000 or less. $35K-$49K 14% 12% 10% $25K-$34K 14% 13% 8% 9% $15K-$24K 8% 12% 7%

6% POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS 10% $7,500-$14K 7% INFREQUENT 5% PREVIOUS 8% NEVER < $7,500 14% 7% 8%

103 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 175

- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -

104 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 176

Chapter 5: Strategies There are many opportunities to increase ridership for RTA and further advance the Agency’s role as a transportation option for everyone in its service area. Strategies should focus on retaining current riders as valued customers and attracting new customers to ride the service at least once (more) per week. Half of current riders already use the service at least five days a week and so the focus should be to retain them as current customers and incentivize their continued use of the system regardless of changing life circumstances such as job changes or new access to a car. Current riders generally rated the services highly even though just over one-third of respondents expect to ride RTA less a year from now. Improved access to a car is the main reason current, recent past and non-riders are not using RTA service.

The majority of non-riders have never used RTA services but also have a favorable perception of the Agency. Those potential customers are likely not using RTA services because they perceive that it does not add any benefit to their travel or that the service doesn’t meet their needs. This could be based on factual information but possibly, to some extent, on incorrect assumptions. With few exceptions familiarity with the RTA RapidLink and CommuterLink Express routes is low suggesting that, although the public is aware of RTA generally and recognizes the brand, they may not know enough about its specific services to accurately judge whether there are routes they could use.

Considering that both current riders and non-riders appear to believe that having access to a car and a valid driver’s license negates the value or need to use the bus, the main hurdle RTA needs to overcome is the perception that transit is an “either-or” mode of travel. In other words, RTA can market itself as a travel option that provides value to the customer even if they have access to a car and portray a culture that riding transit at least sometimes is a normal part of life in Riverside County. Therefore strategies should be organized around themes for retaining current riders or attracting potential customers largely through marketing, outreach and partnership opportunities. Fare, infrastructure planning and service- related strategies should be included as well.

Customers are leaving to drive alone because of the comfort and privacy of their car, but also because the bus takes too long to make a trip. Ridership growth will hinge on improving service frequency which will reduce the time individuals have to wait for a bus. Addressing this measure also has the potential to change the customer’s perception of value and may lead to increased satisfaction with the cost of a fare and monthly pass. Increased express service and revamping other routes so that they are more direct or arrive with greater frequency may address this customer concern.

Technology also offers options to improve trip-times and potentially enhance service frequency by accelerating the boarding process. This could be accomplished through a mobile fare option including advance purchase and scanning prior to boarding. RTA’s RapidLink line offers a good opportunity to explore this capability at high-volume boarding locations such as schools and technology-based employer locations that are more likely to have technology engaged individuals.

105 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 177

Central to increasing ridership potential is improving the service proposition to reduce travel time, and increase the frequency of services. Current customers’ satisfaction with the “frequency of service,” “travel time on bus,” “hours of service,” “time waiting for the bus” and “buses being on-time,” regardless of route traveled, falls into the lowest satisfaction tier. This reiterates the findings of the COA which identified that “customer feedback indicates a strong demand for higher service frequencies and more than any other factor limits the success of the overall network.” Service frequency, travel time and span of service are also key issues for potential RTA customers and individuals who no longer use RTA service. Determining how to improve these factors will also support recruiting new customers and reclaiming lost customers. Since 2015, RTA has aggressively addressed service frequency in the system.

Transit agencies must weigh many, often conflicting, priorities for service provision; chief among these are service coverage and service frequency. With a large geographic area to serve, low-density communities and great distances between destinations, RTA by its nature must provide great service coverage. On the corridors where there are many origins and destinations that are busy throughout the day, continue to enhance service frequency and expand the hours where frequent service is provided.

106 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 178

Chapter 6: Methodology The methodology for the Market Assessment and Strategic Directions Study consisted of an onboard survey which was conducted with current customers and an online survey which was conducted with persons who resided in ZIP codes within the RTA service area.

Onboard Survey Methodology

Sampling Plan The sampling plan for the Onboard Rider Survey was designed to result in approximately 1,200 completed surveys, which allows a sufficient sample for service tier segmentation, to correspond with the COA. Overall, the target sample results in a statistical precision of + 2.8 percent at 95 percent confidence level and a statistical precision of + 5 percent at 95 percent confidence level for the three service tiers that are identified.

Two files, received from RTA, were used extensively in the sampling plan development.

1. FY18 Quarterly Ridership data – used in calculating the average daily ridership by service tier 2. Statistics by Route and Time Period from January to March 2018 – used to develop the daypart distribution

In addition to these files the COA was used to identify service tiers and then routes were collapsed into three tiers based on their service characteristics to achieve a sample size of 400 for each tier.

Because the onboard study focused on fixed route service, the ridership counts for Dial-A-Ride were omitted in the sampling plan development.

Existing fixed routes were grouped together based on their service tiers identified in the COA report. Each service tier and daypart combination in the final sampling plan reflected the proportion in each cell of the sample size prior to grouping.

Table 1: List of Fixed Routes by Service Tier

Service Tier Routes Frequent Key Corridor 1 16 RapidLink 3 8 10 11 12 13 15 18 19 20 21 23 24 Supporting Local 26 29 30 32 33 41 42 49 52 54 Regional Connector 14 22 27 31 61 74 79 Community Feeder 40 50 51 55 200 202 204 205 206 208 210 212 CommuterLink 217

107 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 179

Weekday and weekend ridership was used to determine the ridership split between those segments. The system-wide weekday and weekend distribution was 84 and 16 percent, respectively. Based on a sample size of 1,200, this translated into 1,008 weekday surveys and 192 weekend surveys.

The sampling plan was also developed to closely represent the actual daypart distribution observed in the RTA summary ridership. To achieve this, the count of weekday ridership was grouped into service tiers based on its respective daypart as shown on the table above.

Table 2: Sampling Plan – Before Grouping Service Tier Weekday Weekend Total Service Tier Peak Off-peak Frequent Key Corridor 149 157 60 366 Supporting Local 229 234 93 556 Regional Connector 89 106 38 233 Community Feeder 5 5 10 CommuterLink 24 10 1 35 Total 496 512 192 1,200

After obtaining the ridership distribution of weekday and weekend, as well as the proportions of peak and off-peak, the total targeted sample size of 1,200 was assigned into the sampling plan table for each combination of service tier and daypart.

Table 3: Final Sampling Plan Weekday Off- Weekend Total Service Tier Peak peak Frequent Key Corridor 163 171 66 400 Supporting Local/Community Feeder 165 169 66 400 Regional Connector/CommuterLink 168 173 58 400 Total 497 514 189 1200

The final step involved grouping the service tiers so that each tier had sufficient sample size of 400 surveys for the purpose of reporting within the standard statistical precision of + 5 percent at 95 percent confidence level. Based on ridership and service characteristics Community Feeder service was grouped with the Supporting Local Routes and CommuterLink was grouped with Regional Connector Service.

108 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 180

Survey Instrument The survey instrument was jointly developed with RTA staff and was designed to allow comparability with data collected as part of the COA for key questions. Prior to data collection, the survey instrument was tested on April 25, 2018 with bus riders to ensure that survey wording was clearly understood by riders and that the survey length encouraged maximum participation from individuals taking both short and long trips.

Surveys were printed in Spanish and English on 8 ½ by 14 inch, heavy stock paper and sequentially numbered. The final survey instruments can be found in the Appendix: Onboard Questionnaires. Conduct of Survey All boarding passengers over the age of 13, who were non-RTA employees, were offered a survey upon boarding surveyed buses. The survey was available in English and Spanish. A mail-back option was also available to riders who did not have time to complete a survey during their trip.

A total of 2,123 surveys were collected between April 24 and May 12, 2018, which exceeded the sampling plan by 923 surveys (77 percent). Data collection was primarily conducted between 6 a.m. and 8 p.m. Surveys were collected on both weekdays and weekend days in relative proportion to daily ridership. Data collection was conducted when schools were in session to ensure that students were accurately reflected in the results. Overall survey results can be considered accurate at +/- 2.0 percent at a 95 percent confidence level. Statistical Accuracy by Mode is shown in Statistical Accuracy: System-wide and by Service Tier.

Table 4: Statistical Accuracy: System-wide and by Service Tier

Sample Margin of Service Tier Size Error n = + / - Frequent Key Corridor 594 3.9% Supporting Local/Community Feeder 713 3.6% Regional Connector/Commuter Link 816 2.9% Total 2,123 2.0%

109 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 181

Participation Rates

Table 5: Participation Rates by Tier

Service Tier Approaches Refusals Participation Frequent Key Corridor 1,192 342 29% 850 71% Supporting Local/Community Feeder 1,252 347 28% 905 72% Regional Connector/Commuter Link 1,818 552 30% 1,266 70% Total 4,262 1,241 29% 3,021 71%

Service Tier Participation Incomplete Complete Frequent Key Corridor 850 256 30% 594 70% Supporting Local/Community Feeder 905 192 21% 713 79% Regional Connector/Commuter Link 1,266 450 36% 816 64% Total 3,021 898 30% 2,123 70%

The results of the surveying effort participation rates are displayed in Participation Rates by Tier. The combination of personal interviewing and effective hiring, training and supervision produced a low refusal rate of 29 percent19 and a correspondingly high participation rate of 71 percent. Less than one-third (30 percent) of collected surveys were incomplete, which was defined as having less than 80 percent of all core questions answered. Conversely, nearly three-quarters (70 percent) percent of those that agreed to do the survey were able to complete at least 80 percent of the questions and become part of the final data set.

Weighting The survey data was weighted to ensure that the final results are representative of all passengers by surveyed routes within RTA. The weights were developed based on the ridership data provided by RTA.

For purpose of analysis “don’t know” and declined responses were excluded when establishing a percentage base for a response. Percentages in individual charts and tables may not exactly total 100 percent due to rounding or a question allowing multiple responses.

Weights are calculated in a two-step process. First, the total number of boarding passengers for each route and tier are established. In the second step, for each route/tier combination, the total number of boarding passengers is divided by the total number of completed surveys for that segment to produce the weight. Multiplying the number of completed surveys by the corresponding weight produces results that are in proportion to the number of total boarding passengers by route and tier.

19 As boardings are a count of individuals who enter the bus, and not a count of unique individuals, refusals also include customers who may have already completed the onboard survey.

110 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 182

Potential Customer Survey Methodology

Sampling Plan The sampling plan for the general public/potential customer survey called for the collection of a minimum of 1,200 completed surveys generally representative of RTA’s service area as defined by zip code.

Survey Instrument The survey instrument was jointly developed with RTA staff and was designed to allow comparability with data collected as part of the COA for key questions. Prior to data collection, the survey instrument was pre-tested with residence within RTA’s service region to ensure that survey wording was clearly understood by riders and that the survey length encouraged maximum participation.

Surveys were offered in Spanish and English and can be found in Appendix: Online Survey Instrument.

Conduct of Survey The potential customer survey was conducted via online panel surveying for respondents living in western Riverside County.

Potential customer respondents were screened out of the survey if their home ZIP code was outside of the service area, if they were under the age of 18, and if they ride RTA more than one day per week. All information presented in this report, including the awareness questions, is presented only for residents who use RTA less than once a week, or not at all. The survey results included 180 infrequent riders (less than once per week) that indicated they would consider riding more, 355 previous riders that indicated that they would consider riding again, and 368 non-riders (never use RTA).

Participation Rates It was anticipated that a sample size of 1,200 total surveys would produce a sub-sample of 300 to 600 surveys where respondents would consider using RTA in the future. A total of 1,568 completed surveys were collected that lived in RTA’s service area, exceeding the sampling plan target by 368 surveys (30 percent).

Weighting Based on Census data, the age distribution for the target adult population is approximately 25 percent 18-29 years old, 45 percent 30-54, and 30 percent 55 and older. This is comparable with the survey results which were 29 percent 18-29 years old, 42 percent 30-54 and 29 percent 55 and older. The gender split according to Census data is 51 percent female and 49 percent male. The final data set included 917 women and 640 men, representing a 59/41 percent split. To address this, the survey results were weighted based on gender to provide a balanced final data set at 51 percent female and 49 percent male.

111 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 183

- THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -

112 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 184

Appendix

Onboard Questionnaire

113 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 185

114 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 186

115 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 187

116 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 188

117 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 189

Online Questionnaire

Thank you for your willingness to participate in this important transportation survey. This survey should take about 10 minutes to complete.

Screening

Screening questions 1 First, Are You At Least 18 Years Old?

Please choose only one of the following:

Yes No 2 What Is Your Home Zip Code? *

Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was 'Yes' at question '1 [Age]' (First, Are You At Least 18 Years Old? )

Please choose only one of the following:

91752 92506 92530 92553 92581 92596

92220 92507 92531 92554 92582 92599

92223 92508 92532 92555 92583 92860

92230 92509 92536 92556 92584 92877

92282 92513 92539 92557 92585 92878

92320 92514 92543 92561 92586 92879

92324 92515 92544 92562 92587 92880

92373 92516 92545 92563 92589 92881

92501 92517 92546 92564 92590 92882

92502 92518 92548 92567 92591 92883

92503 92519 92549 92570 92592 Don't Know 92504 92521 92551 92571 92593 Other 92505 92522 92552 92572 92595

118 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 190

3 In which city do you live? *

Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was 'Yes' at question '1 [Age]' (First, Are You At Least 18 Years Old? ) and Answer was 'Other' or 'Don't Know' at question '2 [Zip]' (What Is Your Home Zip Code? )

Please choose only one of the following:

Riverside El Cerrito Lake Mathews Perris

Aguanga El Sobrante Lake Riverside Romoland

Anza French Valley Lakeland Village San Jacinto

Banning Good Hope Lakeview Temecula

Beaumont Green Acres March ARB Temescal Valley

Cabazon Hemet Mead Valley Valle Vista

Calimesa Highgrove Meadowbrook Warm Springs

Canyon Lake Home Gardens Menifee Whitewater

Cherry Valley Homeland Moreno Valley Wildomar

Corona Idyllwild-Pine Mountain Center Winchester Cove Coronita Murrieta Woodcrest Jurupa Valley East Hemet Norco Not Listed Lake Elsinore Eastvale Nuevo

4 What transit agencies can you think of that serve Western Riverside County? (Please select all that apply) *

Please choose all that apply:

Foothill Transit Metro/LACMTA/Los RTA/Riverside Transit Angeles County Metro or Agency OmniTrans MTA None/Don't Know OCTA/Orange County PASS Transit Transportation Authority/OC Other: Bus Metrolink

119 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 191

5 Have you heard of RTA? *

Please choose only one of the following:

Yes

No

6 Which of the following best describes how often you ride your local bus service provider, RTA? *

Please choose only one of the following:

I use RTA services 3 or more days a week I do not currently use RTA but I have used it before I use RTA services 1 to 2 days per week I do not currently use RTA and have never I use RTA services a few times per year used it

7 How long have you used RTA? *

Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was 'I use RTA services a few times per year' at question '6 [Frequency]' (Which of the following best describes how often you ride your local bus service provider, RTA? )

Please choose only one of the following:

Once 6-11 months 3-4 years

Less than 6 months 1-2 years 5 or more years

8 For which of the following types of trips do you use public transit? (Please select all that apply) *

Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was 'I use RTA services a few times per year' at question '6 [Frequency]' (Which of the following best describes how often you ride your local bus service provider, RTA? )

Please choose all that apply:

Work Social/Recreational Errands

Shopping Medical/Social Services Special event

School Dining/Coffee Other:

120 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 192

9 When you rode RTA how long did you ride? *

Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was 'I do not currently use RTA but I have used it before' at question '6 [Frequency]' (Which of the following best describes how often you ride your local bus service provider, RTA? )

Please choose only one of the following:

Once 6-11 months 3-4 years

Less than 6 months 1-2 years 5 or more years

10 For which of the following types of trips did you use public transit? (Please select all that apply) *

Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was 'I do not currently use RTA but I have used it before' at question '6 [Frequency]' (Which of the following best describes how often you ride your local bus service provider, RTA? )

Please choose all that apply:

Work Dining/Coffee

Shopping Errands

School Special event

Social/Recreational Other:

Medical/Social services

Commute Profile 13 Now thinking about your current travel overall, which of the following types of places do you travel to most often? *

Please choose only one of the following:

Work Dining/Coffee

Shopping Errands

School Special event

Social/Recreational Other

Medical/Social services

121 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 193

14 What type of transportation do you normally use to travel to that place? *

Please choose only one of the following:

Drive alone Walk/Bicycle

Uber/Lyft/Sidecar/Taxi Carpool/Vanpool

Bus Other

Train

15 Using your normal type of transportation, how many minutes does it generally take (one-way) to reach the place you travel to most often? (0-180 minutes) *

Please write your answer here:

16 In the past year have you used a bus for any trips, even if only once? *

Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was NOT 'Bus' at question '14 [Mode]' (What type of transportation do you normally use to travel to that place? )

Please choose only one of the following:

Yes

No

No, but I’ve ridden the bus before

17 How many minutes do you think would it take (one-way) to reach the place you travel to most often, if you traveled by bus? *

Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was NOT 'Bus' at question '14 [Mode]' (What type of transportation do you normally use to travel to that place? )

Please choose only one of the following:

30 minutes or less

31 minutes to 60 minutes

61 - 90 minutes

91 - 120 minutes

122 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 194

More than 120 minutes

Don’t know / haven’t looked in to it

Not possible given my destination or home location

Public awareness & attitudes

Public awareness & attitudes towards services offered

18 Would you consider riding RTA buses more often? *

Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was 'I use RTA services a few times per year' at question '6 [Frequency]' (Which of the following best describes how often you ride your local bus service provider, RTA? )

Please choose only one of the following:

Yes

No

19 What is the main reason you would not consider riding RTA buses more often? *

Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was 'No' at question '18 [FewTimes]' (Would you consider riding RTA buses more often?)

Please choose only one of the following:

The bus takes too long/driving is faster

Prefer privacy/comfort of car

Behavior or hygiene of other riders

Don’t feel safe at stops/stations/onboard

Buses are not comfortable

Buses are not frequent enough

It takes too many transfers

I don't know how to plan a trip

It doesn’t go where I need to go

There is no bus stop or station near my home or work

123 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 195

Service is not available when I need to travel

Need to drop-off/pick-up child

Need to make trips during day/other stops when commuting

Other

20 Which of the following would be most likely to get you to ride more often? *

Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was 'Yes' at question '18 [FewTimes]' (Would you consider riding RTA buses more often?)

Please choose only one of the following:

Increasing frequency of service to 15 minutes on most routes

Expanding service to later at night, earlier in the morning and on weekends

Improving service so I can travel with fewer or no transfers

Improving the comfort of seating on the buses

Increasing safety at bus stops and stations

Controlling behavior and hygiene of other riders

Other

21 Why did you stop riding? *

Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was 'I do not currently use RTA but I have used it before' at question '6 [Frequency]' (Which of the following best describes how often you ride your local bus service provider, RTA? )

Please choose only one of the following: Moved or changed jobs and RTA doesn’t go where I need to go

I bought a car

I switched to driving a car I already had

I switched to carpooling

I switched to bicycling/walking

Other

124 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 196

22 What is the main reason you switched to driving? *

Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was 'I switched to driving a car I already had' or 'I bought a car' at question '21 [Stop]' (Why did you stop riding?)

Please choose only one of the following:

The bus takes too long

Prefer privacy/comfort of car

Behavior or hygiene of other riders

Don’t feel safe at stops/stations/onboard

Buses are not comfortable

Buses are not frequent enough

It takes too many buses/transfers

Service is not available when I need to travel

Other

23 Would you ever consider riding RTA again? *

Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was 'I do not currently use RTA but I have used it before' at question '6 [Frequency]' (Which of the following best describes how often you ride your local bus service provider, RTA? )

Please choose only one of the following:

Yes

No

24 What is the main reason you would not consider riding RTA buses again? *

Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was 'No' at question '23 [ConsiderRTAAgain]' (Would you ever consider riding RTA again?)

Please choose only one of the following:

The bus takes too long/driving is faster

Prefer privacy/comfort of car

Behavior or hygiene of other riders

Don’t feel safe at stops/stations/onboard

Buses are not comfortable

125 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 197

Buses are not frequent enough

It takes too many transfers

I don’t know how to plan a trip

It doesn’t go where I need to go

There is no bus stop or station near my home or work

Service is not available when I need to travel

Need to drop-off/pick-up child

Need to make trips during day/other stops when commuting

Other

25 Which of the following would be most likely to get you to ride again? *

Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was 'Yes' at question '23 [ConsiderRTAAgain]' (Would you ever consider riding RTA again?)

Please choose only one of the following:

Increasing frequency of service to 15 minutes on most routes

Expanding service to later at night, earlier in the morning and on weekends

Improving service so I can travel with fewer or no transfers

Improving the comfort of seating on the buses

Increasing safety at bus stops and stations

Controlling behavior and hygiene of other riders

Other

26 Would you ever consider riding RTA buses? *

Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was 'I do not currently use RTA and have never used it' at question '6 [Frequency]' (Which of the following best describes how often you ride your local bus service provider, RTA? )

Please choose only one of the following:

Yes

No

126 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 198

27 What is the main reason you would not consider riding RTA buses? *

Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was 'No' at question '26 [ConsiderRTA]' (Would you ever consider riding RTA buses?)

Please choose only one of the following:

The bus takes too long/driving is faster

Prefer privacy/comfort of car

Behavior or hygiene of other riders

Don’t feel safe at stops/stations/onboard

Buses are not comfortable

Buses are not frequent enough

It takes too many transfers

I don’t know how to plan a trip

It doesn’t go where I need to go

There is no bus stop or station near my home or work

Service is not available when I need to travel

Need to drop-off/pick-up child

Need to make trips during day/other stops when commuting

Other

28 Which of the following would be most likely to get you to ride? *

Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was 'Yes' at question '26 [ConsiderRTA]' (Would you ever consider riding RTA buses?)

Please choose only one of the following:

Increasing frequency of service to 15 minutes on most routes

Expanding service to later at night, earlier in the morning and on weekends

Improving service so I can travel with fewer or no transfers

Improving the comfort of seating on the buses

Increasing safety at bus stops and stations

Controlling behavior and hygiene of other riders

Other

127 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 199

29 Which of the following was the main reason you tried RTA for the first time? *

Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was NOT 'I do not currently use RTA and have never used it' at question '6 [Frequency]' (Which of the following best describes how often you ride your local bus service provider, RTA? )

Please choose only one of the following:

Avoid Traffic

Didn’t own a car

Didn’t have a driver’s license

It was free while at school

New job location

To save money

Price of fuel

Price of parking

Employer subsidy

Better for environment

Free ticket offer

Recommendation from friend/family

New home location

Time to rest, work, read, etc. (instead of drive)

Special event access

Other

Perceptions of RTA

Perceptions of RTA 30 Even though you may not be very familiar with RTA bus service, please rate what you think about RTA for each item using a five-point scale where 1 is “Very Poor” and 5 is “Very Good.” *

Please choose the appropriate response for each item:

128 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 200

5 VERY 1 VERY 0 DON'T GOOD 4 3 2 POOR KNOW Your opinion about RTA overall Frequency of service Hours of operation Buses

being on time Safety while

waiting for/riding buses Time spent

waiting for bus Driver courtesy Buses going where I need to go Travel

time on bus Cleanliness inside bus Walking

distance to bus stop

RTA

129 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 201

5 VERY 1 VERY 0 DON'T GOOD 4 3 2 POOR KNOW advertising RTA

customer service

31 Please review the following statements about RTA and provide a rating of your agreement with each statement on a 5-point scale where 1 is “Strongly Disagree” and 5 is “Strongly Agree”. *

Please choose the appropriate response for each item: 1 STRONGLY 5 STRONGLY 0 DON'T

DISAGREE 2 3 4 AGREE KNOW Public transit is important to the community RTA provides a viable

alternative to the private automobile Public transit is an important contributor to achieving environmental goals in the community

32 [Familiarity]Now please indicate your level of familiarity with three RTA specialty services. For each one, please indicate if: 1) you have not heard of it, 2) you have heard of it but are not familiar with it, 3) you are familiar with

130 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 202 it and know how it works, or 4) you are familiar with it and have used it at least once. *

Please choose the appropriate response for each item: Heard of it, but not Familiar and

Have not familiar know how it Familiar and Don't heard of it with it works have used it Know RTA RapidLink RTA CommuterLink RTA Dial-A- Ride

TNC 33 Have you used Uber, Lyft or other ride-hailing service in the last year? *

Please choose only one of the following:

Yes

No

34 How often do you use a ride-hailing services? *

Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was 'Yes' at question '33 [TaxiService]' (Have you used Uber, Lyft or other ride-hailing service in the last year? )

Please choose only one of the following:

Two or more times per week

At least once per week

A few times per month

Less than once per month

131 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 203

35 Does your use of a ride-hailing service increase, decrease of have no impact on your use of RTA buses? *

Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: ((TaxiService.NAOK == "1"))

Please choose only one of the following:

Increases your use of RTA by providing better access

Decreases your use of RTA by replacing it, or

Has no impact on use of RTA Segmentation 36 Which of the following best describes your work status? *

Please choose only one of the following:

Employed, full-time

Employed, part-time

Stay at home parent or caregiver (full-time)

Not employed and not seeking employment

Not employed and seeking employment

Retired

37 Are you a student? *

Please choose only one of the following:

No - not a student

Yes - full-time student

Yes - part-time student

38 What type of school are you attending? *

Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was 'Yes - part-time student' or 'Yes - full-time student' at question '37 [Student]' ( Are you a student? )

Please choose only one of the following:

High school

Community college

132 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 204

University

trade/technical school

Other school

39 Could you make your trip to work or school using RTA? *

Please choose only one of the following:

Yes

No

Don't Know

40 Is there a bus stop within walking distance of your home? *

Please choose only one of the following:

Yes

No

Don't Know

41 Is there a bus stop within walking distance of your workplace or school? *

Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was 'Yes' at question '40 [BusStop]' (Is there a bus stop within walking distance of your home?)

Please choose only one of the following:

Yes

No

Don't know

Service Enhancement

Service Enhancement Characteristics

42 Now we will present you with 7 scenarios with different combinations of potential RTA service improvements.

133 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 205

NOTE: Please read each scenario carefully. Features & locations change in each scenario. For each scenario, please indicate which feature would have the MOST impact on your decision to try riding RTA bus service, or to ride more often, and which feature would have the LEAST impact. Scenario 1 of 7

Drag items from the “Options” column to the “Ranking” column so they are ordered from greatest impact at the top, to least impact at the bottom. *

Please number each box in order of preference from 1 to 3

Mobile ticketing; purchase and pay with smartphone

Improved bus stops with more shelters, benches and lighting

Buses every 15 minutes on most routes

43 Please select which factor has the MOST impact and which on has the LEAST impact Scenario 2 of 7 Drag items from the “Options” column to the “Ranking” column so they are ordered from greatest impact at the top, to least impact at the bottom. *

Please number each box in order of preference from 1 to 3

Expanded Rapid service which cuts travel time by 30%

Expanded early morning, late night and weekend service

Mobile ticketing; purchase and pay with smartphone

44 Please select which factor has the MOST impact and which on has the LEAST impact

134 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 206

Scenario 3 of 7

Drag items from the “Options” column to the “Ranking” column so they are ordered from greatest impact at the top, to least impact at the bottom. *

Please number each box in order of preference from 1 to 3

Increased direct service where I need to go

Mobile ticketing; purchase and pay with smartphone

A new RTA transit option like Uber-Pool rideshare with small vehicles

45 Please select which factor has the MOST impact and which on has the LEAST impact Scenario 4 of 7

Drag items from the “Options” column to the “Ranking” column so they are ordered from greatest impact at the top, to least impact at the bottom. *

Please number each box in order of preference from 1 to 3

Improved bus stops with more shelters, benches and lighting

Increased direct service where I need to go

Expanded early morning, late night and weekend service

46 Please select which factor has the MOST impact and which on has the LEAST impact Scenario 5 of 7

135 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 207

Drag items from the “Options” column to the “Ranking” column so they are ordered from greatest impact at the top, to least impact at the bottom. *

Please number each box in order of preference from 1 to 3

A new RTA transit option like Uber-Pool rideshare with small vehicles

Expanded Rapid service which cuts travel time by 30% Improved bus stops with more shelters, benches and lighting

47 Please select which factor has the MOST impact and which on has the LEAST impact Scenario 6 of 7

Drag items from the “Options” column to the “Ranking” column so they are ordered from greatest impact at the top, to least impact at the bottom. *

Please number each box in order of preference from 1 to 3

Expanded early morning, late night and weekend service

Buses every 15 minutes on most routes

Increased direct service where I need to go

48 Please select which factor has the MOST impact and which on has the LEAST impact Scenario 7 of 7

Drag items from the “Options” column to the “Ranking” column so they are ordered from greatest impact at the top, to least impact at the bottom. *

Please number each box in order of preference from 1 to 3

136 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 208

Buses every 15 minutes on most routes

A new RTA transit option like Uber-Pool rideshare with small vehicles

Expanded Rapid service which cuts travel time by 30%

MapInfo

49 Is there any place you would like RTA service to go now that is not being adequately served? *

Please choose only one of the following:

Yes

No

50 Where would you like an RTA bus to go that it doesn't go now? (Please identify city or major landmark or other specific geographic area)

Only answer this question if the following conditions are met: Answer was 'Yes' at question '49 [AddPlace]' (Is there any place you would like RTA service to go now that is not being adequately served? )

Please write your answer here:

Map

Market segments

Market segments 53 Do you currently have a driver’s license? *

Please choose only one of the following:

Yes

No

137 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 209

54 Do you Always, Usually, Sometimes or Never have a car available for your personal transportation needs? *

Please choose only one of the following:

Always

Usually

Sometimes

Never

55 What year were you born? *

Please write your answer here:

56 Do you consider yourself to have a disability? *

Please choose only one of the following:

Yes

No

57 Do you consider yourself…

Please choose only one of the following:

African American/Black

Hispanic

Asian

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

American Indian or Alaska native

Caucasian (non-Hispanic)

Multiracial

Other

138 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 210

58 What is your gender identity?

Please choose only one of the following:

Male

Female

Prefer not to answer

59 What was your total annual household income last year?

Please choose only one of the following:

Less than $7,500

$7,500–14,999

$15,000–24,999

$25,000-34,999

$35,000–49,999

$50,000–74,999

$75,000 or greater

139 Redhill Group, Inc. 2018 Item 8 211

RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY 1825 Third Street Riverside, CA 92507

November 15, 2018

TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS

THRU: Larry Rubio, Chief Executive Officer

FROM: Vince Rouzaud, Chief Procurement and Logistics Officer

SUBJECT: Authorization to Award Agreement No. 18-035 to Token Transit for the Development and Implementation of the Agency’s New Mobile Ticketing Application (App)

Summary: Staff is requesting authorization to award Agreement No. 18-035 to Token Transit (Token) for the Agency’s new mobile ticketing app. The three-year Agreement will include the development, installation and implementation of required hardware and on-going transaction fees for a software app allowing customers to purchase digital fare media.

Over the past two years, staff has done considerable research on the mobile ticketing technologies currently available for transit operators. Mobile ticketing is the newest and fastest-growing method for customers to pay fares on public transportation. Customers simply download an app on their mobile devices to purchase fare media in the form of a digital bus pass. This eliminates the need for customers to carry cash, purchase a pre- printed bus pass online or seek out a pass sales outlet to purchase bus passes.

Beyond improving the ease with which customers can pay fares, mobile ticketing also simplifies and adds efficiencies to transit operations. The Agency will benefit by reducing the need for passes that must be printed and distributed to pass outlets. The Agency will also benefit from greater operational efficiencies as digital bus passes will not jam the farebox and boarding times are shortened by eliminating the need to feed coins and bills into the farebox. Additionally, the handling, counting and processing of cash will be decreased. Finally, the use of digital bus passes will minimize fraud since customers will be unable to share passes except in specific situations that are controlled through their original account set-up.

After a thorough analysis of the above, staff determined a mobile ticketing app would be beneficial for both the Agency’s operations and its customers.

Item 9 212 The selected vendor would be required to deliver a complete turn-key system, including design, testing, delivery, installation and assistance with associated hardware, software, communications, system interfaces, operations, maintenance, licenses, support and training. Initially, the app would be used solely on the Agency’s fixed-route services.

Implementation will include the installation of all required equipment, the set-up of a stored-value account-based infrastructure that will also have the ability to capture ridership data. Staff anticipates the implementation will be a two-phased approach. The first phase is anticipated to begin in February of 2019 and will offer all current fixed-route fare media in a digital format. The second phase will launch the digital bus pass for the U-Pass and Go- Pass programs and is anticipated to begin with the 2019 summer term. This will allow the Agency and its partner schools sufficient time to test the new app prior to the return of students for the 2019 fall term.

Based on the experiences of neighboring transit agencies, additional benefits include: • The potential for stimulating growth in ridership, particularly with customers who currently have smartphones or other mobile devices. • Improving the customer’s experience through easier methods of payment. • Eliminating the reliance upon student ID cards with magstripes for the Agency’s U-Pass and Go-Pass programs. • Improving digital pass distribution capabilities. Customers can instantly send and receive passes through text and e-mail. Special event and promotional passes can be created and distributed quickly.

• ADA compliance and improved accessibility for visually impaired, disabled, and non-English speaking riders.

• An account-based system that supports the functionality of fare capping allowing customers to pay for their monthly pass over a period of time rather than all at once.

• Decreased costs associated with the routine maintenance and repair of fareboxes. • Digital fare media results in fewer lost, stolen or damaged passes.

• Refunds for digital passes can be instantly credited to a customer’s account, eliminating the need for a refund check.

Item 9 213 On May 23, 2018, the Agency issued Request for Proposals (RFP) 18-035. The RFP was publicly advertised in a newspaper of general circulation and a notice was posted on the Agency’s website along with a copy of the RFP document. In addition, the Agency sent notices to local chambers of commerce in cities that are members of the Joint Powers Agreement. On July 6, 2018, the Agency received proposals from the following six vendors:

. Americaneagle.com, Los Angeles, California . Bytemark, Inc., New York, New York . Datamatics Global Services, Inc., Livonia, Michigan . Mobile Programming, LLC, Agoura Hills, California . Passport Labs, Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina . Token Transit, San Francisco, California

The proposals were evaluated by an evaluation committee representing staff from the marketing, information technologies, operations, finance, and purchasing departments. Vendors were rated in three technical areas: qualifications, related experience and references; staffing and project organization; and an understanding of the Agency’s requirements.

At the conclusion of the technical review, the four highest technically ranked firms, Americaneagle.com, Bytemark, Inc., Passport Labs, Inc., and Token Transit, were invited for interviews. Due to lower technical scores, the remaining two firms, Datamatics Global Services, Inc. and Mobile Programming were excluded from further consideration. The interview process gives the vendor the opportunity to discuss in more detail key elements of their proposal.

The next step in the evaluation process was to conduct a thorough price analysis for reasonableness. Staff then solicited Best and Final Offers (BAFOs) from each vendor. BAFO pricing is shown in the table below:

Firm Name Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 TOTAL Bytemark $ 684,836.74 $ 97,101.54 $ 97,101.54 $ 879,039.82 Token Transit $ 400,879.50 $ 98,479.50 $ 98,479.50 $ 597,838.50 Passport $ 133,211.30 $ 92,011.30 $ 92,011.30 $ 317,233.90

Americaneagle.com submitted their pricing with a caveat that reserved their right to revise their BAFO pricing based upon further discussions with both the Agency and the Agency’s Intelligent Transportation Systems contractor, Clever Devices. As such, they were eliminated from further consideration.

Based on the overall evaluation process (technical review, price analysis, in-person interviews and reference checks), it was the evaluation committee’s determination that the solution proposed by Token Transit met the Agency’s functional requirements, provided the Agency’s customers a

Item 9 214 user-friendly app, provided a means for regional integration through its partnership with the trip planning firm Transit App Inc., and overall, was the most technically responsive and responsible vendor. Highlights from their proposal are as follows:

• The Token solution will only take weeks, not months, to implement.

• Installation of its equipment on Agency buses takes a few minutes per bus.

• Its app is integrated with Transit App Inc., which has a trip-planning and real-time information app supported and used throughout North America and 10 foreign countries. Thus, the Agency’s mobile ticketing app can be accessed through the Transit Trip Planner App, making it easy for customers to find and purchase bus fares wherever they are located.

• Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) technology can be used to provide on/off data for individual riders, making it possible to track their specific destinations.

• There will be minimal involvement required from the Agency’s information technologies and operations staff.

• If new or upgraded equipment with new features becomes available during the term of the agreement, it will be provided at no additional cost to the Agency.

• Apple Pay, Google Pay and PayPal are expected to be available on the app in January 2019.

Nearby transit properties utilizing the Token Transit app include Santa Monica (Big Blue Bus), Long Beach Transit, Anaheim Resort Transportation and Omnitrans; several other California properties are either using or launching the app, including San Luis Obispo Transit, Golden Empire Transit (Bakersfield), Gold Coast Transit (Oxnard), Santa Clarita Transit, Clovis Transit, San Joaquin RTD, San Benito Transit, Vine Transit (Napa), Modesto Area Express and several other transit properties throughout the U.S.

Staff is therefore recommending approval of a three-year contract with Token Transit for the Agency’s mobile ticketing app.

Fiscal Impact:

The total amount of the three-year agreement using Token Transit will be

Item 9 215 $597,838.50. This amount includes the equipment, initial set-up and implementation costs in the amount of $302,400. Staff estimates 20 percent of existing cash paying customers will adopt and use the mobile ticketing app. For their part, Token Transit will be paid five percent of those transactions, estimated at $98,479.50 each year. The table below shows the funding distribution:

Funding Source

Federal STA LTF LCTOP Total 5307

Equipment $241,920.00 $60,480.00 -0.00- -0.00- $302,400.00 (Beacons) Estimated Annual Transaction Fees -0.00- -0.00- $283,611.05 $11,827.45 $295,438.50 (3 yrs)

$597,838.50

Sufficient funds to cover the purchase of the equipment, initial set-up and system implementation are included in the Agency’s capital budget. Transaction fees for the balance of FY19 are included in the Agency’s FY19 operating budget. Transaction fees for future years will be requested in future year budgets.

Committee Recommendation:

This item was discussed at the Board Administration and Operations Committee meeting on November 7, 2018. The Committee members unanimously approved and recommended this item to the full Board of Directors for their consideration.

Recommendation:

Authorize staff to award Agreement No. 18-035 to Token Transit for the development and implementation of the Agency’s mobile ticketing app for a total not-to-exceed amount of $597,838.50 for the three-year period.

Item 9 216 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY 1825 Third Street Riverside, CA 92507

November 15, 2018

TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS

THRU: Larry Rubio, Chief Executive Officer

FROM: Craig Fajnor, Chief Financial Officer

SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2017/2018 (FY18) Financial Audit Results

Summary: The accounting firm of Brown Armstrong performed the Agency’s FY18 independent financial audit. Attached for review and approval are the Basic Financial Statements, Single Audit Report, and SAS 114 Letter for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018.

The FY18 annual audit yielded the following results:

• The Agency received an unmodified – or clean – opinion on our Basic Financial Statements, which means that the Agency’s accounting and financial reporting were consistent with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

• The Agency received an unmodified – or clean – opinion on our Internal Control over Financial Reporting and Compliance, which means that the Agency’s financial processes, policies, and procedures follow good and sound protection against fraud and data manipulation.

• The Agency received an unmodified – or clean – opinion on our Compliance and Internal Control related to OMB Circular A-133 (Single Audit), which means that the Agency follows required and prudent processes in expending and accounting for Federal funds.

• The auditors noted no reportable conditions relating to instances of disagreements with management, as well as no material errors, irregularities, or possible illegal acts.

• The auditors also compiled, reviewed and noted no exceptions in auditing compliance with TDA statutes, NTD agreed upon procedures, State Controller’s Report, and Federal Audit Clearinghouse Data Collection processes.

Item 10 217

• The Agency was in compliance with Public Utilities Code Section 99270.1 – Compliance with required farebox ratio. The pre- determined minimum farebox ratio for fiscal year 2017/2018 was 17.44 percent. The actual farebox ratio achieved was 21.69 percent, resulting in a favorable variance of 4.25 percent.

Committee Recommendation:

This item was discussed at the Board Budget and Finance Committee meeting of November 7, 2018. The committee members unanimously approved and recommended this item to the full Board of Directors for their consideration.

Recommendation:

Accept the Riverside Transit Agency’s FY18 Audited Financial Statements, Single Audit Report, and SAS 114 Letter as final.

Item 10 218

RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA

BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WITH INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT

JUNE 30, 2018 AND 2017

Item 10 219

RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA JUNE 30, 2018 AND 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Independent Auditor’s Report ...... 1

Management’s Discussion and Analysis ...... 3

Basic Financial Statements:

Statements of Net Position ...... 11

Statements of Activities and Changes in Net Position ...... 12

Statements of Cash Flows ...... 13

Notes to the Basic Financial Statements ...... 15

Required Supplementary Information – Schedule of Changes in the Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios ...... 44

Required Supplementary Information – Schedule of Contributions ...... 46

Required Supplementary Information – Schedule of Changes in the Net Other Postemployment Benefits (OPEB) Asset and Related Ratios ...... 47

Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance Over Financial Reporting Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with the Statutes, Rules, and Regulations of the California Transportation Development Act and the Allocation Instructions and Resolutions of the Transportation Commission ...... 48

Item 10 220

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT

To the Board of Directors of the Riverside Transit Agency Riverside, California

Report on the Financial Statements

We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) as of and for the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the RTA’s basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents.

Management’s Responsibility for the Financial Statements

Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

Auditor’s Responsibility

Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement.

An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the RTA’s preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the RTA’s internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.

We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinions.

1 Item 10 221

Opinions

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the RTA as of June 30, 2018 and 2017, and the respective changes in financial position, and cash flows thereof for the years then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Emphasis of a Matter

During the year ended June 30, 2018, the RTA adopted the provisions of Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 75, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefits Other than Pension Plans. Our opinion was not affected by the implementation.

Other Matters

Required Supplementary Information

Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the Management’s Discussion and Analysis on pages 3-10, Schedule of Changes in the Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios on pages 44-45, Schedule of Contributions on page 46, and Schedule of Changes in the Net Other Postemployment Benefits (OPEB) Asset on page 47 be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the GASB, who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance.

Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards

In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated October 5, 2018, on our consideration of the RTA’s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the RTA’s internal control over financial reporting and compliance.

BROWN ARMSTRONG ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION

Bakersfield, California October 5, 2018

2 Item 10 222

RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS JUNE 30, 2018 AND 2017

As management of the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA or the Agency), we offer readers of the RTA’s basic financial statements this narrative overview and analysis of the financial activities of the RTA for the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017.

FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS

 Farebox revenues increased 3% from the year ended June 30, 2017 to $10,712,941. The increase in farebox revenue was the result of continued collaboration with local colleges and universities as well as the first full year of Perris Valley Line (PVL) feeder services.  The Farebox Recovery Ratio (FRR) increased from 20.64% in fiscal year 2017 to 21.69% in fiscal year 2018. The increase in the FRR was the result of increased overall eligible operating revenue, including farebox revenue, investment income, and compressed natural gas (CNG) related revenue.  Investment income more than doubled from fiscal year 2017 to $472,563 in fiscal year 2018. This was attributable to both improved portfolio performance as well as an increase in available funds for operating investments.  The Agency procured a new contract to purchase natural gas for conversion to CNG. The new contract included updated provisions in regards to the sale of its Renewable Identification Number (RIN) and Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS) credits. RIN and LCFS credits are federal and state programs, respectively, that are earned by the Agency as a result of its use of CNG to power its 40-foot bus fleet. The new contract included a further reduction in the cost of natural gas to the Agency, as indexed by the Southern California Gas Company, as well as improved percentage participation in the sale of RIN and LCFS credits. Agency revenue from the sale of RIN and LCFS credits increased 70% in fiscal year 2018 to $1,393,382.  Operating expenses (excluding depreciation, interest, and pass-through grants) increased 7% to $79,235,004. The increase was mainly attributable to increased staffing, wages and benefits, and purchased transportation expenses.  In February 2018, the Agency transitioned to a new Dial-A-Ride (DAR) service provider. Southland Transit, Inc. was awarded a contract through June 2020, with two one-year Agency options after that, to provide demand-response service on behalf of the Agency.  The assets and deferred outflows of resources of the RTA exceeded its liabilities and deferred inflows of resources at the close of the year ended June 30, 2018 by $85,073,651 (net position). Of this amount, $83,135,045 consisted of Net Investment in Capital Assets and $1,938,606 consisted of Unrestricted Net Position.  The RTA’s Capital Assets (after the application of accumulated depreciation) decreased $7,989,067. Capital Assets decreased as a result of asset retirements of $17,832,047 and an increase in accumulated depreciation of $2,040,267, partially offset by asset additions of $11,883,247. Asset retirements were mainly comprised of capital parts and demand-response passenger vans. Asset additions were mainly attributable to bus stop overhauls, information technology equipment and software, and revenue vehicles, including trolleys and demand- response passenger vans. Capital Asset procurements are funded with a mix of federal, state, and local grants.  The RTA launched RapidLink (Gold Line) service, which provides limited stop service between Riverside and Corona during peak periods on weekday mornings and afternoons. RapidLink stops are located at many popular locations, use modern shelters and signage, and contain solar- powered lighting.  The Agency also launched two new CommuterLink routes providing service via the 91 Freeway into Orange County. Route 200, which travels from Downtown San Bernardino to Disneyland, and Route 205, which travels between Temecula and The Village at Orange.  The Agency continued its work on three key future mobility hubs: Hemet, Temecula Promenade, and University of California, Riverside (UCR). These mobility hubs will be vital to coordinating the transportation needs of the community in the coming years.

3 Item 10 223

 The Agency commenced an Attitude and Awareness (A&A) Study and laid the groundwork on its initial Transit Asset Management Plan (TAMP). The A&A study will survey the greater community to better understand how RTA is perceived by those that do and do not utilize our services. The TAMP, which is a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requirement, will focus on creating an organized plan for tracking, maintaining, and replacing high value capital assets.  During fiscal year 2018, RTA initiated a plan to seek $22,097,610 in Local Transportation Fund revenues held in reserve with the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). The funds would be used to pay off its actuarially determined Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL), as measured at June 30, 2017, on its pension plan administered by CalPERS. The UAL has grown significantly over the years due to various factors experienced by CalPERS and outside the control of RTA. These factors include a downward trend in long-term investment results as well as changes in actuarial assumptions. Analysis conducted by CalPERS indicates that if the UAL is paid off as of the June 30, 2017 balance, the Agency would save approximately 27 million dollars over a 28-year period. The RTA expects the approval of the funding request by RCTC as well as the corresponding payment to CalPERS to occur in the Fall of 2018.

OVERVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

This discussion and analysis is intended to serve as an introduction to the RTA’s basic financial statements. The RTA accounts for expenses in only one fund (Enterprise Fund); therefore, the basic financial statements do not reflect the activities of multiple funds.

The RTA’s basic financial statements consist of the Statements of Net Position, Statements of Activities and Changes in Net Position, and Statements of Cash Flows.

The Statements of Net Position presents complete information on the RTA’s assets and deferred outflows of resources, as well as liabilities and deferred inflows of resources, with the difference reported as net position. Changes in net position that occur over time may serve as an indicator of the RTA’s financial position.

The Statements of Activities and Changes in Net Position provides information regarding the revenues generated and received (passenger fares and grants) and the expenses incurred in which to generate those revenues. The difference between the revenues and expenses represent the Change in Net Position for the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017.

The Statements of Cash Flows presents information on the RTA’s cash receipts/payments and net changes in cash (and cash equivalents) from operating, capital/capital-related financing, non-capital financing, and investing activities and decisions during the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017.

The RTA’s basic financial statements are shown on pages 11-14 of this report.

Accompanying the basic financial statements are Notes to the Basic Financial Statements. These notes provide information on significant accounting policies, cash and investments, governmental subsidies, inventory, capital assets, long-term debt, advances on grant revenue, and other significant events in other areas which resulted in the financial performance reflected in those statements.

Notes to the Basic Financial Statements are shown on pages 15-43 of this report.

4 Item 10 224

FINANCIAL STATEMENT ANALYSIS

STATEMENTS OF NET POSITION

As stated earlier, increases or decreases in net position over time may serve as a useful indicator of the RTA’s financial position. A summary of the Statements of Net Position during the years ended June 30, 2018, 2017 and 2016 are shown below. The focus is on Net Position (Note 1):

June 30, 2018 June 30, 2017 June 30, 2016

Assets Capital Assets, Net$ 83,135,045 $ 91,124,112 $ 80,490,527 All Other Assets 69,701,726 55,108,425 46,276,086

Total Assets 152,836,771 146,232,537 126,766,613

Deferred Outflows of Resources Pension (Note 8) 8,353,696 9,187,724 4,915,752 OPEB (Note 9) 1,447,704 - -

Total Deferred Outflows of Resources 9,801,400 9,187,724 4,915,752

Liabilities Current Liabilities 54,350,166 45,091,616 37,173,276 Long-Term Liabilities 22,621,561 18,686,816 12,373,608

Total Liabilities 76,971,727 63,778,432 49,546,884

Deferred Inflows of Resources 592,793 3,008,082 4,494,312

Net Position $ 85,073,651 $ 88,633,747 $ 77,641,169

Net Position: Net Investment in Capital Assets$ 83,135,045 $ 91,124,112 $ 80,490,527 Unrestricted 1,938,606 (2,490,365) (2,849,358)

Total Net Position $ 85,073,651 $ 88,633,747 $ 77,641,169

In the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, the majority of the RTA’s Net Position reflected its investment in Capital Assets (e.g., revenue vehicles; non-revenue support vehicles; passenger facilities/structures; and peripheral equipment for operations, maintenance, and administrative support). The RTA uses these capital assets to provide transportation service to the surrounding communities, as well as maintain the necessary service infrastructure. All of the RTA’s Capital Assets were procured with a mix of federal, state, and local funds. The capitalization threshold for rolling stock (bus equipment, parts, materials) for the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017 was $1,800 and $2,000, respectively. A guideline was also established for all other items that cost $2,500 or more and have a useful life of more than one year. Any item purchased that did not meet the aforementioned criteria was period expensed.

Net Position decreased $3,560,096 when compared to the prior year. The decrease was primarily due to depreciation and pension expense, partially offset by a prior-period adjustment for the implementation of GASB 75. More information on GASB 75 can be found in Note 9 of the financial statements.

5 Item 10 225

STATEMENTS OF ACTIVITIES AND CHANGES IN NET POSITION

The Statements of Activities and Changes in Net Position provides information regarding the RTA’s revenues and expenses. The table below reflects a summary of the RTA’s Statements of Activities and Changes in Net Position during the years ended June 30, 2018, 2017 and 2016.

June 30, 2018 June 30, 2017 June 30, 2016 Revenues Passenger Fares $ 10,712,941 $ 10,356,851 $ 10,969,984 Operating Subsidies 64,163,918 61,778,875 52,854,181 Capital Funds 7,199,605 24,774,651 20,819,091 Investment Income and Other Revenue 2,142,861 1,404,547 1,097,243

Total Revenues 84,219,325 98,314,924 85,740,499

Expenses Salaries and Benefits 40,618,608 36,684,602 32,462,927 Purchased Transportation 27,439,132 25,699,035 21,716,488 Materials and Supplies 3,721,314 3,813,461 3,141,263 Services 2,784,900 2,683,598 3,011,157 Casualty and Liability 2,646,728 3,336,845 1,452,200 Utilities/Taxes/Interest/Misc. Other 2,162,178 1,877,839 1,872,661

Subtotal Expenses Before Depreciation/Amortization 79,372,860 74,095,380 63,656,696

Depreciation/Amortization 14,221,349 13,226,966 11,643,434

Total Expenses Including Depreciation/Amortization/Interest 93,594,209 87,322,346 75,300,130

Change in Net Position (9,374,884) 10,992,578 10,440,369

Net Position Beginning of Year, as restated 94,448,535 77,641,169 67,200,800

End of Year $ 85,073,651 $ 88,633,747 $ 77,641,169

Revenues. Passenger Fares represented 13% of the fiscal year 2018 revenue. Passenger Fares for Directly Operated/Contracted Fixed Route, Contracted Dial A Ride (DAR), and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) passengers increased $356,090, or 3%. Operating Subsidies (76% of total year ended June 30, 2018 revenue) increased by $2,385,043 and was primarily attributed to the increase in Federal Transit Administration funds. Capital Funds (9% of total revenue) decreased by $17,575,046 primarily due to the purchase of additional 40-foot buses in fiscal year 2017. Investment Income and Other Revenue represented the remaining 2% of the total year ended June 30, 2018 revenue. The majority of Other Revenue is attributed to CNG related revenue.

6 Item 10 226

The combined amount of Operating Subsidies and Capital Funds reflect $71,363,523 (85% of total revenue). These funds come from a variety of specific funding sources. Each funding source is guided by government regulations regarding type and use of funds. A breakdown of specific Operating and Capital Subsidy/Grant dollar amounts by funding source for the year ended June 30, 2018 is shown below, accompanied by the year ended June 30, 2017 amounts for comparison purposes.

Operating Subsidies - June 30, 2018 June 30, 2017: $64,163,918 LTF$ 42,540,557 FTA - Section 5307/5309 14,417,126 $555,774 $322,979 $1,242,465 FTA - Section 5310 352,816 $3,395,333 FTA - Section 5311 555,774 FTA - Section 5304 106,285 Measure A 2,841,324 Other 964,993 $ 61,778,875

$16,554,776

LTF

CMAQ

FTA - Section 5307

FTA - Section 5310 $41,043,120 FTA - Section 5311

$1,049,471 Measure A

Other

Capital Funds - June 30, 2018 June 30, 2017: $7,199,605 FTA:$ 12,638,031 STA: 1,583,126 LTF: 3,712,726 $1,441,690 Proposition 1B: 1,361,870 RCTC Other Revenue: 3,698,701 Other: 1,780,197 $ 24,774,651

$690,661

FTA $4,199,182 $54,789 State Transit Assistance (STA)

LTF $813,283 Proposition 1B

Other

Expenses. Adopted RTA policies, procedures, and business processes are used as management tools to control expenses and attain goals and objectives. These controllable Operating Expenses consist of cost elements that exclude depreciation/amortization, interest, and pass-through activity. For purposes of this analysis, Operating Expenses before Depreciation/Amortization, Interest, and Pass-Through Grants will be discussed.

 Operating Expenses totaled $79,235,004 for the year ended June 30, 2018, increasing from $74,089,014 for the year ended June 30, 2017 (7% increase). This increase is primarily attributed to growth in salaries (staffing increases coupled with compensation adjustments), benefits (medical and paid time off), and purchased transportation (contracted service rates). A breakdown of Operating Expenses (as a percentage of net operating expenses) is shown below, accompanied by the year ended June 30, 2017 percentages for comparison purposes.

7 Item 10 227

Operating Expenses Before Depreciation/Amortization, Interest, and Pass-Through Grants June 30, 2018 3% 2% June 30, 2017: 4% Salaries and Benefits 49% Purchased Transportation 35% 5% Materials and Supplies 6% Services 4% Casualty and Liability 3% Utilities/Taxes/Misc. Other 3% 100%

51% Salaries and Benefits

Purchased Transportation

Materials and Supplies 35% Services

Casualty and Liability

Utilities/Taxes/Misc. Other

BUDGETARY HIGHLIGHTS

The Annual Operating/Capital budget is used as a management tool to monitor Revenue and Expenses and evaluate operating performance at any given time period. The RTA Board of Directors (the Board) approves this item prior to implementation. The fiscal year 2018 budget total of $88,632,998 included $81,598,830 for Operating Expenses and $7,034,168 for Capital Projects. The RTA finished the year ended June 30, 2018 with operating expenses net of depreciation/amortization, interest, and pass- through grant expenses $2,363,826, or 3%, under budget.

CAPITAL ASSETS

The RTA’s investment in Capital Assets (net of accumulated depreciation/amortization) as of June 30, 2018 amounted to $83,135,045. This investment in capital assets includes land, buildings, fleet, communication/farebox systems, machinery/equipment, and passenger facilities. All assets have been purchased with federal, state, or local grants awarded to the RTA. Overall, there was a decrease of 9% in the RTA’s investment in capital assets.

Significant Capital Asset activity during the year ended June 30, 2018 included the following:

 Purchase of 30 passenger vans  Purchase of 5 trolleys  Improvements to RTA facilities  Maintenance replacement parts  Information Technology improvements  Retirement of 4 buses, 41 passenger vans, and 9 support vehicles

8 Item 10 228

To gain an understanding of capital asset additions and retirements at a historical cost relationship, an analysis of Capital Asset activity before accumulated depreciation/amortization is shown in the schedule below:

Balance Balance July 1, 2017 Additions Retirements June 30, 2018

Land $ 3,534,097 $ - $ - $ 3,534,097 Buildings 23,121,858 - (5,139) 23,116,719 Vehicles 103,652,288 2,696,934 (3,421,665) 102,927,557 Equipment 33,815,218 5,099,898 (8,758,232) 30,156,884 Construction in Progress 12,081,825 4,086,415 (5,647,011) 10,521,229

Total Capital Assets 176,205,286 11,883,247 (17,832,047) 170,256,486 Less Accumulated Depreciation/Amortization (85,081,174) (14,221,349) 12,181,082 (87,121,441)

Total Assets, Net of Depreciation/Amortization$ 91,124,112 $ (2,338,102) $ (5,650,965) $ 83,135,045

Total Capital Asset additions totaled $11,883,247. The retirement of the 41 passenger vans and other assets reflected a decrease of $17,832,047. The net of the previous two figures, coupled with the application of a net accumulated depreciation/amortization increase of $2,040,267, decreased Capital Assets by $7,989,067. Additional detail on the RTA’s Capital Asset activity for the year is shown in Note 5 of the Notes to the Basic Financial Statements on page 25 of this report.

ECONOMIC FACTORS AND NEXT YEAR’S BUDGET

These significant factors were considered as budget assumptions when preparing the RTA’s budget for fiscal year 2019:

 Expansion and enhancements to existing service levels are top priority in order to grow ridership and maintain or increase productivity. As such, fixed-route revenue hours are budgeted to increase approximately 3% in fiscal year 2019. The increase in revenue hours is largely attributable to the full year run rate of routes introduced in fiscal year 2018, such as RapidLink, CommuterLink Routes 200 and 205, and the frequency improvements to Route 19. New service offerings in fiscal year 2019 include the introduction of Routes 9 and 28, as well as additional weekday and weekend trips on various existing routes.  Sensitivity to and monitoring of fuel prices and other consumables needed to provide service.  Sensitivity to employee wages, health care benefits, workers’ compensation, and pension benefits.  Utilization of professional consultants that will enhance future operations in the area of route planning and scheduling as well as productivity improvement are only utilized if critical and essential to basic operations. To that end, the fiscal year 2019 budget includes a Fare Policy Study and the implementation of mobile tickets. The Fare Policy Study will take a fresh look at RTA’s fare structure, which has not changed since 2009. Mobile tickets will allow riders to purchase and use RTA passes directly from their mobile devices.  Expectation that demand for transit services will remain stable over the next several years due to traffic congestion and the desire for mobility options.  Bus service plans must continue to be sensitive to funding constraints and revenue projections due to economic uncertainty and legislative issues.  Continuation of a Travel Training Program seeking to transfer users of demand response service to fixed route service.  The Agency will implement its TAMP in fiscal year 2019. Major work on the TAMP commenced in fiscal year 2018. However, the FTA required document must be finalized and implemented by October 1, 2018. The Agency’s TAMP is slated to be approved by the Board in September 2018.  The fiscal year 2019 capital budget includes the first steps towards programming the replacement of the heavy duty CNG-powered 40-foot bus fleet. It also includes replacements of contract fixed route buses and demand-response vans, as well as programming for the future Operations & Maintenance facility.

9 Item 10 229

The approved budget for fiscal year 2019 totals $123,759,860, a 40% increase over the year ended June 30, 2018 budget. The large growth is mainly attributed to increased capital appropriations as noted above. Operating expenses, net of depreciation/amortization and interest expenses, are budgeted at $87,666,909. This reflects an increase of 7% over the fiscal year 2018 operating budget. Capital appropriations are budgeted at $36,092,951.

The RTA relies on Operating and Capital Subsidies for 85% of its total revenue. These subsidies come from a variety of specific funding sources. Each funding source is guided by government regulations regarding type and use of funds. A component of the RTA Operating Funds is local operating assistance, which is comprised of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF). Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Public Utilities Code (PUC) provisions govern the use of these funds.

One such provision is conformance to a predetermined Farebox Recovery Ratio (Fare Revenue/Operating Expenses) set by the RCTC and Caltrans. The fiscal year 2019 predetermined target ratio is 16.72%. The RTA’s Board approved the fiscal year 2019 budget, which indicates a projected farebox recovery ratio of 22.57%, resulting in a projected favorable variance of 5.85%. The RTA anticipates being in conformance with the Farebox Recovery Ratio provision.

Additional information on TDA conformance is found in Note 11 of the Notes to the Basic Financial Statements, pages 41-42 of this report.

The Board adopted the fiscal year 2019 operating budget considering an overall system-wide ridership that is essentially flat compared to fiscal year 2018. Projected revenues are sufficient to meet the operating needs of the Agency.

Because of cost volatility for fuel and other operating expenses such as workers’ compensation, as well as any potential changes in projected farebox revenues, staff may revisit service levels to verify that the proposed service can be sustained in the future. Further, if additional capital expenditures are necessary for strategic purposes, staff will develop a mid-year budget revision to present to the Board for consideration.

REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION

This financial report is designed to provide a general overview of the RTA’s finances for all interested parties. Questions concerning any of the information provided in this report or requests for additional financial information should be addressed to the Chief Financial Officer, Riverside Transit Agency, P.O. Box 59968, Riverside, California 92517.

10 Item 10 230

BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Item 10 231

RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY STATEMENTS OF NET POSITION JUNE 30, 2018 AND 2017

2018 2017 ASSETS AND DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES

CURRENT ASSETS: Cash, cash equivalents, and investments (Note 2) $ 52,810,419 $ 42,624,182 Accounts receivable 1,295,108 837,527 Due from other governmental agencies (Note 3) 6,065,721 4,135,495 Interest receivable 4,851 46,270 Inventories (Note 4) 811,087 848,167 Prepaid expenses 326,862 2,596,190 Other postemployment benefits (OPEB) (Note 9) - 4,020,594

Total Current Assets 61,314,048 55,108,425

NONCURRENT ASSETS: Net OPEB asset (Note 9) 8,387,678 - Capital assets, net (Note 5) 83,135,045 91,124,112

Total Noncurrent Assets 91,522,723 91,124,112

Total Assets 152,836,771 146,232,537

DEFERRED OUTFLOWS OF RESOURCES: Pension (Note 8) 8,353,696 9,187,724 OPEB (Note 9) 1,447,704 -

Total Deferred outflows of resources 9,801,400 9,187,724

LIABILITIES AND DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES

CURRENT LIABILITIES: Accounts payable and accrued expenses 7,000,787 5,086,015 Accrued payroll and related taxes 1,141,471 962,788 Compensated absences (Note 12) 1,886,320 1,676,841 Claims payable (Note 7) 2,719,184 2,859,357 Advances on grant revenue: Operating assistance (Note 6) 7,083,568 1,915,019 Capital assistance (Note 6) 34,464,028 32,561,291 Other advances 29,808 5,305 Other accrued liabilities 25,000 25,000

Total Current Liabilities 54,350,166 45,091,616

NONCURRENT LIABILITIES: Net pension liability (Note 8) 22,621,561 18,686,816

Total Noncurrent Liabilities 22,621,561 18,686,816

Total Liabilities 76,971,727 63,778,432

DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES: Pension (Note 8) 592,793 3,008,082

Total Deferred inflows of resources 592,793 3,008,082

NET POSITION

NET POSITION: Net investment in capital assets 83,135,045 91,124,112 Unrestricted 1,938,606 (2,490,365)

Total Net Position $ 85,073,651 $ 88,633,747

See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements. 11 Item 10 232

RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY STATEMENTS OF ACTIVITIES AND CHANGES IN NET POSITION FOR THE YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2018 AND 2017

2018 2017 OPERATING REVENUES: Passenger fares $ 10,712,941 $ 10,356,851

OPERATING EXPENSES: Salaries 24,025,435 21,640,867 Employee benefits 16,593,173 15,043,735 Purchased transportation 27,439,132 25,699,035 Other materials and supplies 2,167,702 2,109,520 Services 2,784,900 2,683,598 Fuel and lubricants 1,553,612 1,703,941 Casualty and liability costs 2,646,728 3,336,845 Miscellaneous expenses 1,276,673 1,001,972 Utilities 846,527 826,676 Taxes 38,978 42,825 Depreciation and amortization: Depreciation - property and equipment 14,221,349 13,226,966

Total depreciation and amortization 14,221,349 13,226,966

Total Operating Expenses 93,594,209 87,315,980

OPERATING LOSS (82,881,268) (76,959,129)

NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES): Operating funds: Local Transportation Fund 41,043,120 42,540,557 Federal Transit Administration - CMAQ 1,049,471 - Federal Transit Administration - Section 5304 - 106,285 Federal Transit Administration - Section 5307 16,554,776 14,339,152 Federal Transit Administration - Section 5309 - 77,974 Federal Transit Administration - Section 5310 322,979 352,816 Federal Transit Administration - Section 5311 555,774 555,774 Measure A 3,395,333 2,841,324 Other operating funds 1,242,465 964,993

Total operating funds 64,163,918 61,778,875

Capital funds: Federal Transit Administration grants 4,199,182 12,638,031 State Transit Assistance funds 813,283 1,583,126 Local Transportation Fund 54,789 3,712,726 Proposition 1B 690,661 1,361,870 Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) other revenue - 3,698,701 Other 1,441,690 1,780,197

Total capital funds 7,199,605 24,774,651

Investment income 472,563 196,332 Interest expense - (6,366) Gain on sale of operator property 3,833 4,034 Other 1,666,465 1,204,181

Nonoperating Revenues, Net 73,506,384 87,951,707

Change in Net Position (9,374,884) 10,992,578

NET POSITION:

Beginning of year 88,633,747 77,641,169 Prior period adjustment 5,814,788 -

Beginning of year, as restated (Note 13) 94,448,535 77,641,169

End of year $ 85,073,651 $ 88,633,747

See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements. 12 Item 10 233

RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2018 AND 2017

2018 2017 CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: Cash received from passengers $ 10,698,453 $ 10,318,788 Cash payments to suppliers for operations (33,270,678) (34,847,019) Cash payments for general and administrative expenses (39,279,564) (40,291,676)

Net Cash Used by Operating Activities (61,851,789) (64,819,907)

CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES: Operating subsidies received 64,207,987 63,398,386 Other noncapital financing 1,666,465 1,204,181

Net Cash Provided by Noncapital Financing Activities 65,874,452 64,602,567

CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES: Capital funds received 11,878,289 39,113,835 Payments on the acquisition of capital assets (6,236,484) (23,869,311) Proceeds on sale of property and equipment 7,787 12,794 Interest payments - (6,366) Net Cash Provided by Capital and Related Financing Activities 5,649,592 15,250,952

CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: Interest received 513,982 187,991

Net Increase in Cash, Cash Equivalents, and Investments 10,186,237 15,221,603

CASH, CASH EQUIVALENTS, AND INVESTMENTS: Beginning balance 42,624,182 27,402,579

Ending balance $ 52,810,419 $ 42,624,182

FINANCIAL STATEMENT PRESENTATION: Cash, cash equivalents, and investments$ 52,810,419 $ 42,624,182

Total Cash, Cash Equivalents, and Investments $ 52,810,419 $ 42,624,182

See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements. 13 Item 10 234

RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (Continued) FOR THE YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2018 AND 2017

2018 2017 RECONCILIATION OF OPERATING LOSS TO NET CASH USED BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES: Operating loss $ (82,881,268) $ (76,959,129) Adjustments to reconcile operating loss to net cash used by operating activities: Depreciation and amortization 14,221,349 13,226,966 Changes in assets, deferred inflows of resources, liabilities, and deferred outflows of resources: (Increase) Decrease in accounts receivable (38,992) (38,218) (Increase) Decrease in inventories 37,080 192,360 (Increase) Decrease in prepaid expenses 2,269,328 (2,267,905)

(Increase) Decrease in current operating assets 2,267,416 (2,113,763)

Increase (Decrease) in accounts payable and accrued expenses 1,914,259 426,592 Increase (Decrease) in accrued payroll and related taxes 179,167 (17,782) Increase (Decrease) in compensated absences 209,816 166,076 Increase (Decrease) in claims payable (140,173) (104,028) Increase (Decrease) in other advances 24,503 155 Increase (Decrease) in net pension liability 2,353,142 555,006

Increase (Decrease) in current operating liabilities 4,540,714 1,026,019

Net Cash Used by Operating Activities $ (61,851,789) $ (64,819,907)

See accompanying notes to the basic financial statements. 14 Item 10 235

RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY NOTES TO THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JUNE 30, 2018 AND 2017

NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

The accounting policies of the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) are in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America applicable to government units. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is the accepted standard-setting body for establishing accounting and financial reporting principles. The following is a summary of the significant accounting policies:

A. Financial Reporting Entity

The RTA was established in August 1975 as a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) under authority of Title I, Division 7, Chapter 5, as amended by the Government Code of the State of California. By joint exercise of their common power, the County of Riverside and the nine cities of Western Riverside County created the RTA to serve as a separate public transportation agency. As of June 30, 2018 and 2017, the RTA serves as a public transportation agency to the County of Riverside and eighteen cities of Western Riverside County. Members of the JPA reserve the right to provide transportation services within their respective jurisdictions, while the RTA serves as a unifying umbrella agency, coordinating transportation services throughout Western Riverside County. The RTA maintains and operates (directly or through contracts with other operators) the public bus transit system of Western Riverside County.

The RTA is a special purpose governmental unit with no component units and is eligible for funding under Section 99200 et. seq. of the California Public Utilities Code.

B. Basic Financial Statements

The basic financial statements (i.e., the Statements of Net Position, the Statements of Activities and Changes in Net Position, and the Statements of Cash Flows) report information on all of the enterprise activities of the RTA. These basic financial statements are presented in accordance with GASB Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements—Management’s Discussion and Analysis—for State and Local Governments, and related standards; GASB Statement No. 37, Basic Financial Statements – and Management’s Discussion and Analysis – for State and Local Governments: Omnibus; and GASB Statement No. 38, Certain Financial Statement Note Disclosures. The standards provide for significant changes in terminology; recognition of contributions in the Statements of Activities and Changes in Net Position; inclusion of a Management’s Discussion and Analysis as supplementary information; and other changes.

C. Measurement Focus, Basis of Accounting, and Financial Statement Presentation

The basic financial statements are prepared using the economic resource measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Accordingly, all assets and liabilities (whether current or noncurrent) are included on the Statements of Net Position. The Statements of Activities and Changes in Net Position presents increases (revenues) and decreases (expenses) in total net position. Under the accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized in the period in which they are earned while expenses are recognized in the period in which the liability is incurred.

Private-sector standards of accounting and financial reporting issued prior to December 1, 1989 are generally followed to the extent that those standards do not conflict with or contradict guidance of the GASB. Governments also have the option of following subsequent private-sector guidance for their business-type activities, subject to some limitations.

15 Item 10 236

NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)

C. Measurement Focus, Basis of Accounting, and Financial Statement Presentation (Continued)

The RTA distinguishes operating revenues and expenses from nonoperating items. Operating revenues and expenses generally result from providing transportation services. The principal operating revenues of the RTA are charges to passengers for transportation services (passenger fares). Operating expenses include the cost of providing service, including general and administrative expenses and depreciation of capital assets. All revenues and expenses not meeting this definition are reported as nonoperating revenues and expenses. Capital contributions are reported as a separate line item in the Statements of Activities and Changes in Net Position.

When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the RTA’s policy to use restricted resources for the purposes intended, then unrestricted resources as they are needed.

D. Cash and Cash Equivalents

The RTA’s cash and cash equivalents are considered to be cash on hand, demand deposits, and short-term investments with original maturities of three months or less from the date of acquisition.

E. Investments

All investments are stated at fair value, except for money market investments that have a remaining maturity of less than one year when purchased which are stated at amortized cost. Money market investments are short-term, highly liquid debt instruments including commercial paper, bankers’ acceptances, and U.S. Treasury and Agency obligations. Fair value is the value at which a financial instrument could be exchanged in a current transaction between willing parties, other than in a forced or liquidation sale. All investment income, including changes in fair value, is included in nonoperating revenues.

F. Restricted Assets

Restricted assets represent allocations of cash and certain assets to redeem debt.

G. Inventories

Inventory of parts is stated at the moving average of cost.

H. Capital Assets

Capital assets are stated at cost, net of accumulated depreciation/amortization, except for the portions acquired by contribution, which are recorded at fair value at the time received. The RTA did not receive any donated capital assets during the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017. The capitalization threshold for any equipment, tires, tubes, and materials of rolling stock was $1,800 and $2,000 in the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, respectively. A guideline was also established for capitalizing all other items costing $2,500 or more and having an estimated life of more than one year. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) excludes the bus tire lease from this requirement as it is depreciated/amortized over a twelve-month period. Depreciation/Amortization is based on the estimated useful lives of the assets, which range from 1 to 30 years, using the straight-line method or the units-of-consumption method.

The cost of normal maintenance and repairs that do not add to the value of the asset or materially extend asset lives are not capitalized.

The estimated useful lives of capital assets are as follows:

Buildings and improvements 25 – 30 years Transit coaches (30’ to 40’ vehicles) Units-of-Consumption Transit coaches (less than 30’ vehicles) Units-of-Consumption Paratransit vans and support vehicles Units-of-Consumption Furniture and equipment 3 – 5 years Bus tires 1 year

16 Item 10 237

NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)

I. Bond Premiums, Discounts, and Issuance Costs

Premiums, discounts, and costs of issuance on debt issues are amortized over the respective lives of the debt using the straight-line method.

J. Claims and Judgments

An estimated loss is recorded, net of insurance coverage and inclusive of an estimate for incurred but unreported claims, when it is probable that a claim liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated.

K. Compensated Absences

Administrative Employees: Full-time administrative employees, except for the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), accrue up to 240 hours of vacation and 40 hours of floating holidays annually, while eligible part-time administrative employees accrue up to 120 hours of vacation only per year. Vacation and floating holidays must be taken the year in which they are earned and will not be carried over from year to year or paid-out unless approved by the CEO. An employee shall earn up to 96 hours of sick leave per year but may not accumulate a sick leave balance of more than 1,040 hours. All eligible administrative employees may elect to take a sick leave balance pay-out on the first paycheck in July and the first paycheck in December.

Union Employees: Full-time union employees accrue up to 240 hours of vacation, 64 hours of floating holidays, and 96 hours of sick leave annually. Vacation and floating holidays must be taken the year in which they are earned and will not be carried over from year to year or paid-out unless approved by the CEO. Sick leave pay-outs to union employees are issued in the same manner as noted above, with the exception that union employees must retain 24 hours in bank time, provided they meet the requirements stipulated in Article 37 of the Memorandum of Understanding. Additionally, union employees may accrue sick leave time up to a maximum of 1,040 hours.

L. Pensions

For purposes of measuring the net pension liability, deferred outflows/inflows of resources related to pensions, and pension expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the RTA’s California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) plan (the “Plan”) and additions to/deductions from the Plan’s fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as they are reported by CalPERS. For this purpose, benefit payments (including refunds of employee contributions) are recognized when due and payable in accordance with the benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair value.

M. Other Postemployment Benefits (OPEB)

For purposes of measuring the net OPEB asset, deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB, and OPEB expense, information about the fiduciary net position of the Agency’s plan (OPEB Plan) and additions to/deductions from the OPEB Plan’s fiduciary net position have been determined on the same basis as they are reported by CalPERS. For this purpose, benefit payments are recognized when currently due and payable in accordance with the benefit terms. Investments are reported at fair value. Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the reported results must pertain to liability and asset information within certain defined timeframes.

17 Item 10 238

NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)

N. Net Position

In the Statements of Net Position, net position is classified in the following categories:

Net Investment in Capital Assets – This amount consists of capital assets net of accumulated depreciation/amortization and reduced by outstanding debt that is attributed to the acquisition, construction, or improvement of the assets.

Restricted Net Position – This amount is restricted by external creditors, grantors, contributors, or laws or regulations of other governments.

Unrestricted Net Position – This amount is all net position that does not meet the definition of “net investment in capital assets” or “restricted net position.”

O. Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect certain reported amounts and disclosures. Accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates.

P. Government Grants and Subsidies

Subsidies and grants for operating assistance, the acquisition of equipment, or other capital outlay are not formally recognized in the accounts until the grant becomes a valid receivable as a result of the RTA’s complying with appropriate grant requirements.

For presentation purposes, operating assistance subsidies are included in nonoperating revenues in the year in which the grant is applicable and the related reimbursable expenditure is incurred.

As required by GASB Statement No. 33, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Nonexchange Transactions, capital contributions beginning in the year ended June 30, 2001, are reported as nonoperating revenues in the Statements of Activities and Changes in Net Position. Assets acquired with restricted capital grant funds are included in capital assets. Beginning the year ended June 30, 1999, federal operating revenues were replaced by allowing capitalization and subsequent reimbursements of percentage of eligible maintenance operating expenses as defined by the FTA. These proceeds are recorded as nonoperating revenues.

Grants received in excess of allowable expenditures are recorded as advances on grant revenue.

Q. Budget

The RTA’s fiscal policies establish the framework for the management and control of the RTA’s resources to ensure that the RTA remains fiscally sound. The RTA’s goals and policies, which are approved by the Board of Directors (the Board), determine where and how the RTA resources should be dedicated. For this reason, the RTA’s goals, objectives, short and long-range planning, and performance analyses are incorporated into the budget development process.

It is the policy of the RTA that the Board approves an annual budget prior to the beginning of each year. The budget is developed generally using the accrual basis of accounting. All annual operating appropriations lapse at the fiscal year-end.

18 Item 10 239

NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued)

R. New Accounting Pronouncements – Implemented

GASB Statement No. 75 – Accounting and Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefits Other than Pension Plans. The provisions of this statement are effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2017. The RTA has implemented the provisions of GASB Statement No. 75 in the current year. As a result of this implementation, the RTA reported a prior period adjustment to net position in the amount of $5,814,788 and recognized a net OPEB asset and deferred outflow of resources associated with OPEB as of June 30, 2018. See Note 9 for a detailed discussion of the effects of the RTA’s current and prior period financial statements as a result of the adoption of this standard.

GASB Statement No. 81 – Irrevocable Split-Interest Agreement. The requirements of this statement are effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016. There was no effect on the RTA’s accounting and financial reporting as a result of implementing this standard.

GASB Statement No. 85 – Omnibus 2017. The requirements of this statement are effective for periods beginning after June 15, 2017. There was no effect on the RTA’s accounting and financial reporting as a result of implementing this standard.

GASB Statement No. 86 – Certain Debt Extinguishment Issues. The requirements of this statement are effective for periods beginning after June 15, 2017. There was no effect on the RTA’s accounting and financial reporting as a result of implementing this standard.

S. Future Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statements

GASB Statement No. 83 – Certain Asset Retirement Obligations. The requirements of this statement are effective for periods beginning after June 15, 2018. The RTA will implement GASB Statement No. 83 if and where applicable.

GASB Statement No. 84 – Fiduciary Activities. The requirements of this statement are effective for periods beginning after December 15, 2018. The RTA will implement GASB Statement No. 84 if and where applicable.

GASB Statement No. 87 – Leases. The requirements of this statement are effective for periods beginning after December 15, 2019. The RTA will implement GASB Statement No. 87 if and where applicable.

GASB Statement No. 88 – Certain Disclosures Related to Debt, including Direct Borrowings and Direct Placements. The requirements of this statement are effective for periods beginning after June 15, 2018. The RTA will implement GASB Statement No. 88 if and where applicable.

GASB Statement No. 89 – Accounting for Interest Cost Incurred before the End of a Construction Period. The requirements of this statement are effective for periods beginning after December 15, 2019. The RTA will implement GASB Statement No. 89 if and where applicable.

GASB Statement No. 90 – Majority Equity Interests and amendment of GASB Statement No. 14 and No. 61. The requirements of this statement are effective for periods beginning after December 15, 2018. The RTA will implement GASB Statement No. 90 if and where applicable.

NOTE 2 – CASH, CASH EQUIVALENTS, AND INVESTMENTS

Cash, cash equivalents, and investments as of June 30, 2018 and 2017 are classified in the accompanying financial statements as follows:

2018 2017 Statement of Net Position: Cash, cash equivalents, and investments $ 52,810,419 $ 42,624,182

Total Cash, Cash Equivalents, and Investments $ 52,810,419 $ 42,624,182

19 Item 10 240

NOTE 2 – CASH, CASH EQUIVALENTS, AND INVESTMENTS (Continued)

Cash, cash equivalents, and investments as of June 30, 2018 and 2017 consist of the following:

2018 2017

Cash on Hand $ 2,500 $ 1,500 Deposits with Financial Institutions 4,162,670 2,924,038 Investments 48,645,249 39,698,644

Total Cash, Cash Equivalents, and Investments $ 52,810,419 $ 42,624,182

Investments Authorized by the California Government Code and the RTA’s Investment Policy

The table below identifies the investment types that are authorized for the RTA by the California Government Code (or the RTA’s investment policy, where more restrictive). The table also identifies certain provisions of the California Government Code (or the RTA’s investment policy, where more restrictive) that address interest rate risk, credit risk, and concentration of credit risk. This table does not address investments of debt proceeds held by bond trustee that are governed by the provisions of debt agreements of the RTA, rather than the general provisions of the California Government Code or the RTA’s investment policy.

Maximum Maximum Authorized Maximum Percentage Investment Investment Type Maturity of Portfolio* in One Issuer

U.S. Treasury Obligations 2 years None None Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) N/A None None Riverside County Treasurer’s Pooled Investment Fund (RCTPIF) N/A None None CalTRUST N/A None None

* Excluding amounts held by bond trustee that are not subject to California Government Code restrictions.

Investments Authorized by Debt Agreements

Investment of debt proceeds held by bond trustee is governed by provisions of the debt agreements, rather than the general provisions of the California Government Code or the RTA’s investment policy. The table below identifies the investment types that are authorized for investments held by bond trustee. The table also identifies certain provisions of these debt agreements that address interest rate risk, credit risk, and concentration of credit risk.

Maximum Maximum Authorized Maximum Percentage Investment Investment Type Maturity Allowed in One Issuer

Investment Contracts 30 years None None U.S. Treasury Obligations 5 years None None U.S. Agency Securities 5 years None None Bankers’ Acceptances 30 days 40% 30% Commercial Paper 270 days 25% 10% Unsecured Certificates of Deposit 30 days 30% None Repurchase Agreements 1 year None None Medium-Term Notes 5 years 30% None Money Market Funds N/A 20% 10%

20 Item 10 241

NOTE 2 – CASH, CASH EQUIVALENTS, AND INVESTMENTS (Continued)

Disclosures Relating to Interest Rate Risk

Interest rate risk is the risk that changes in market interest rates will adversely affect the fair value of an investment. Generally, the longer the maturity of an investment, the greater the sensitivity of its fair value to changes in market interest rates.

Information about the sensitivity of the fair values of the RTA’s investments (including investments held by bond trustee) to market interest rate fluctuations is provided by the following table that shows the distribution of the RTA’s investments by maturity as of June 30, 2018 and 2017:

2018 Remaining Maturity (in Months)

12 Months 13 to 24 25 to 60 More Than Investment Type or Less Months Months 60 Months

County Investment Pool$ 3,044,770 $ 3,044,770 $ - $ - $ - State Investment Pool 106,529 106,529 - - - CalTRUST 45,493,950 45,493,950 - - -

Total$ 48,645,249 $ 48,645,249 $ - $ - $ -

2017 Remaining Maturity (in Months)

12 Months 13 to 24 25 to 60 More Than Investment Type or Less Months Months 60 Months

County Investment Pool$ 1,215,742 $ 1,215,742 $ - $ - $ - State Investment Pool 105,285 105,285 - - - CalTRUST 38,377,617 38,377,617 - - -

Total$ 39,698,644 $ 39,698,644 $ - $ - $ -

Disclosures Relating to Credit Risk

Generally, credit risk is the risk that an issuer of an investment will not fulfill its obligation to the holder of the investment. This is measured by the assignment of a rating by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization. Presented below is the minimum rating required by (where applicable) the California Government Code, the RTA’s investment policy, or debt agreements, and the actual rating as of year-end for each investment type.

2018 Minimum Rating as of Year-End Legal Not Investment Type Rating AAA AA Rated

County Investment Pool$ 3,044,770 N/A$ 3,044,770 $ - $ - State Investment Pool 106,529 N/A - - 106,529 CalTRUST 45,493,950 N/A - 45,493,950 -

Total$ 48,645,249 $ 3,044,770 $ 45,493,950 $ 106,529

21 Item 10 242

NOTE 2 – CASH, CASH EQUIVALENTS, AND INVESTMENTS (Continued)

Disclosures Relating to Credit Risk (Continued)

2017 Minimum Rating as of Year-End Legal Not Investment Type Rating AAA AA Rated

County Investment Pool$ 1,215,742 N/A$ 1,215,742 $ - $ - State Investment Pool 105,285 N/A - - 105,285 CalTRUST 38,377,617 N/A - 38,377,617 -

Total$ 39,698,644 $ 1,215,742 $ 38,377,617 $ 105,285

Concentration of Credit Risk

The investment policy of the RTA contains no limitations on the amount that can be invested in any one issuer beyond that stipulated by the California Government Code.

Custodial Credit Risk

Custodial credit risk for deposits is the risk that, in the event of the failure of a depository financial institution, a government will not be able to recover its deposits or will not be able to recover collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. The custodial credit risk for investments is the risk that, in the event of the failure of the counterparty (e.g., broker-dealer) to a transaction, a government will not be able to recover the value of its investment or collateral securities that are in the possession of another party. The California Government Code and the RTA’s investment policy does not contain legal or policy requirements that would limit the exposure to custodial credit risk for deposits or investments, other than the following provision for deposits: The California Government Code requires that a financial institution secure deposits made by state or local governmental units by pledging securities in an undivided collateral pool held by a depository regulated under state law (unless so waived by the governmental unit). The market value of the pledged securities in the collateral pool must equal at least 110% of the total amount deposited by the public agencies. California law also allows financial institutions to secure RTA deposits by pledging first trust deed mortgage notes having a value of 150% of the secured public deposits.

Investment in State and County Pools

The RTA is a voluntary participant in the California State Treasurer’s LAIF and the RCTPIF. LAIF is regulated by California Government Code Section 16429 under the oversight of the Treasurer of the State of California. Oversight of the RCTPIF is conducted by the Riverside County Treasury Oversight Committee. The fair value of the RTA’s investments in these pools is reported in the accompanying financial statements at amounts based upon the RTA’s pro-rata share of the fair value of the entire LAIF and RCTPIF portfolios, respectively.

Investment in CalTRUST

The RTA is a voluntary participant in the Investment Trust of California (CalTRUST). CalTRUST is organized as a JPA established by public agencies in California for the purpose of pooling and investing local agency funds. A Board of Trustees supervises and administers the investment program of CalTRUST. The Board is comprised of experienced investment officers and policy-makers of the public agency members. The RTA’s investments in CalTRUST are pooled with other participants’ accounts and the RTA receives units in CalTRUST and designated fund shares based on fair market value.

22 Item 10 243

NOTE 2 – CASH, CASH EQUIVALENTS, AND INVESTMENTS (Continued)

Fair Value Measurements

The RTA categorizes its fair value measurements within the fair value hierarchy established by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. These principles recognize a three-tiered fair value hierarchy, as follows:

 Level 1: Investments reflect prices quoted in active markets;  Level 2: Investments reflect prices that are based on a similar observable asset either directly or indirectly, which may include inputs in markets that are not considered to be active; and,  Level 3: Investments reflect prices based upon unobservable sources.

Investments in CalTRUST and State and County investment pools totaling $48,645,249 and $39,698,644 as of June 30, 2018 and 2017, respectively, are measured at a mix of fair value and amortized cost. The pools are not registered as investment companies with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) nor are they SEC Rule 2a7-like pools.

NOTE 3 – DUE FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES

Amounts due from other governmental agencies consisted of the following at June 30, 2018 and 2017:

2018 2017 Federal (FTA): Operating $ 4,763,419 $ 1,756,460 Capital - 694,055

State (STA): Capital - 474,327

Local: Capital Riverside County Transportation Commission - 101

Operating: Metrolink 20,682 18,054 OCTA - Orange County Transportation Authority - 29,437 Riverside County Transportation Commission 63,300 93,149 County of Riverside 1,104,557 948,043 California Department of Transportation 27,148 32,234 State of California 86,615 78,089 SCAG - Southern California Association of Governments - 11,546

Total $ 6,065,721 $ 4,135,495

Federal

Under provisions of the FTA, funds are available to the RTA for maintenance costs; transportation planning; operations; and the acquisition, construction, improvement, and maintenance of transit facilities, transit vehicles, and equipment.

23 Item 10 244

NOTE 3 – DUE FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES (Continued)

State

Under provisions of a 1979 amendment to the Transportation Development Act of 1971 (TDA), the State of California’s appropriations through the State Transit Assistance (STA) Fund are available for capital projects of a public transportation system. To qualify for operating funds, a transit operator must meet one of the efficiency standards under TDA Section 99314.6.

Local

The State of California Local Transportation Fund (LTF) monies under the TDA, as amended, are available for transit operations and development. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) administers these funds on behalf of the County of Riverside. Funds are apportioned to eligible transit operators based on the percentage of the County of Riverside’s population that lies within each operator’s service area. The RTA also receives various other operating revenues through service agreements with local agencies. These agencies include, but are not limited to, Metrolink, RCTC, and the County of Riverside.

NOTE 4 – INVENTORIES

Inventories consisted of the following as of June 30, 2018 and 2017:

2018 2017

Parts $ 799,424 $ 840,016 Fuel 11,525 1,553 Oil 138 6,598

Total $ 811,087 $ 848,167

24 Item 10 245

NOTE 5 – CAPITAL ASSETS

Capital assets of the RTA for the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017 consisted of the following:

Balance Balance June 30, 2017 Additions Retirements June 30, 2018

Capital Assets, Not Being Depreciated/Amortized: Land $ 3,534,097 $ - $ - $ 3,534,097 Construction in progress 12,081,825 4,086,415 (5,647,011) 10,521,229

Total Capital Assets, Not Being Depreciated/Amortized 15,615,922 4,086,415 (5,647,011) 14,055,326

Capital Assets, Being Depreciated/Amortized: Buildings 23,121,858 - (5,139) 23,116,719 Vehicles: Buses 80,559,190 - - 80,559,190 Van and minibuses 21,200,105 2,521,701 (3,086,854) 20,634,952 Support vehicles 1,892,993 175,233 (334,811) 1,733,415 Equipment: Bus accessories and electronics 2,606,530 293,501 (325,390) 2,574,641 Bus stop amenities 5,439,375 4,217,685 - 9,657,060 Communication equipment 2,748,581 - (95,742) 2,652,839 Computers 7,299,451 296,643 (228,892) 7,367,202 Furniture and office equipment 1,259,379 4,786 (15,965) 1,248,200 Capitalized parts/assembly 8,299,820 203,299 (7,303,021) 1,200,098 Support services equipment 6,162,082 83,984 (789,222) 5,456,844

Total Capital Assets, Being Depreciated/Amortized 160,589,364 7,796,832 (12,185,036) 156,201,160

Less Accumulated Depreciation/Amortization (85,081,174) (14,221,349) 12,181,082 (87,121,441)

Total Capital Assets, Being Depreciated/Amortized, Net 75,508,190 (6,424,517) (3,954) 69,079,719

Total Capital Assets, Net $ 91,124,112 $ (2,338,102) $ (5,650,965) $ 83,135,045

Depreciation/Amortization expense for the year ended June 30, 2018 was $14,221,349.

25 Item 10 246

NOTE 5 – CAPITAL ASSETS (Continued)

Balance Balance June 30, 2016 Additions Retirements June 30, 2017

Capital Assets, Not Being Depreciated/Amortized: Land $ 3,534,097 $ - $ - $ 3,534,097 Construction in progress 4,647,158 7,849,528 (414,861) 12,081,825

Total Capital Assets, Not Being Depreciated/Amortized 8,181,255 7,849,528 (414,861) 15,615,922

Capital Assets, Being Depreciated/Amortized: Buildings 23,121,858 - - 23,121,858 Vehicles: Buses 69,733,173 13,652,691 (2,826,674) 80,559,190 Van and minibuses 24,184,792 - (2,984,687) 21,200,105 Support vehicles 1,296,315 1,030,054 (433,376) 1,892,993 Equipment: Bus accessories and electronics 2,622,372 277,013 (292,855) 2,606,530 Bus stop amenities 5,345,436 115,680 (21,741) 5,439,375 Communication equipment 2,568,773 525,701 (345,893) 2,748,581 Computers 7,196,954 224,927 (122,430) 7,299,451 Furniture and office equipment 1,255,904 3,475 - 1,259,379 Capitalized parts/assembly 8,010,916 288,904 - 8,299,820 Support services equipment 5,845,883 316,199 - 6,162,082

Total Capital Assets, Being Depreciated/Amortized 151,182,376 16,434,644 (7,027,656) 160,589,364

Less Accumulated Depreciation/Amortization (78,873,104) (13,226,966) 7,018,896 (85,081,174)

Total Capital Assets, Being Depreciated/Amortized, Net 72,309,272 3,207,678 (8,760) 75,508,190

Total Capital Assets, Net$ 80,490,527 $ 11,057,206 $ (423,621) $ 91,124,112

Depreciation/Amortization expense for the year ended June 30, 2017 was $13,226,966.

Changes in capital assets by funding source for the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017 are as follows:

Federal State LTF TUMF Proposition 1B RCTC Other Other Funds Funds Funds Funds Funds Funds Funds Total

June 30, 2016$ 60,593,701 $ 27,671,877 $ 19,794,491 $ 6,028,660 $ 40,571,462 $ - $ 4,703,440 $ 159,363,631

Additions 7,861,173 940,554 3,416,081 - 483,653 3,698,701 34,482 16,434,644 Reclassification 3,624 (4,313) 939 94 (166) 2 (180) - Work in progress 4,776,857 642,572 296,644 786,928 878,219 - 53,447 7,434,667 Deletions (3,695,048) (832,033) (262,051) (20,694) (991,483) - (1,226,347) (7,027,656)

June 30, 2017 69,540,307 28,418,657 23,246,104 6,794,988 40,941,685 3,698,703 3,564,842 176,205,286

Additions 5,210,220 648,279 407,716 1,072,755 271,246 - 186,616 7,796,832 Reclassification 81,111 (81,112) 203 (99) 1 (3) (101) - Work in progress (1,011,256) 161,448 (352,917) (727,328) 422,904 - (53,447) (1,560,596) Deletions (8,510,718) (2,504,818) (281,676) (2,769) (148,503) - (736,552) (12,185,036)

June 30, 2018$ 65,309,664 $ 26,642,454 $ 23,019,430 $ 7,137,547 $ 41,487,333 $ 3,698,700 $ 2,961,358 $ 170,256,486

26 Item 10 247

NOTE 6 – ADVANCES

The combined change in advances below represents excess operating assistance and capital assistance. Advances for the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017 for operating assistance are as follows:

FTA State TDA/LTF Measure A Total Operating Assistance: Excess Operating Funds at June 30, 2016$ - $ 460,410 $ 9,528,905 $ 9,670 $ 9,998,985 Allocations received 15,432,001 - 34,920,311 2,838,014 53,190,326

Funds available 15,432,001 460,410 44,449,216 2,847,684 63,189,311 Less: eligible costs (15,432,001) (460,410) (42,540,557) (2,841,324) (61,274,292)

Excess Operating Funds at June 30, 2017 - - 1,908,659 6,360 1,915,019 Allocations received 18,483,000 1,996,175 44,630,335 3,388,973 68,498,483

Funds available 18,483,000 1,996,175 46,538,994 3,395,333 70,413,502 Less: eligible costs (18,483,000) (408,481) (41,043,120) (3,395,333) (63,329,934)

Excess Operating Funds at June 30, 2018$ - $ 1,587,694 $ 5,495,874 $ - $ 7,083,568

The combined change in advances for the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017 for capital assistance is as follows:

FTA STA State TDA/LTF Proposition 1B TUMF Other Total Capital Assistance: Excess Capital Funds at June 30, 2016 $ - $ 975,486 $ 1,551,354 $ 5,380,560 $ 9,122,588 $ - $ 10 $ 17,029,998 Allocations received 12,638,030 870,697 391 2,303,908 7,447,247 16,105,849 939,821 40,305,943

Total available 12,638,030 1,846,183 1,551,745 7,684,468 16,569,835 16,105,849 939,831 57,335,941 Less: capital purchases (12,638,030) (1,583,126) (53,448) (3,712,726) (1,361,870) (786,928) (3,733,183) (23,869,311) Less: other ------(905,339) (905,339) Reclassification - - - (3,698,701) - - 3,698,701 -

Excess Capital Funds at June 30, 2017 - 263,057 1,498,297 273,041 15,207,965 15,318,921 10 32,561,291 Allocations received 4,199,183 2,760,541 400 26,690 1,864,241 966,152 1,090,489 10,907,696

Total available 4,199,183 3,023,598 1,498,697 299,731 17,072,206 16,285,073 1,090,499 43,468,987 Less: capital purchases (4,199,183) (813,283) (5,774) (54,789) (690,661) (345,427) (127,367) (6,236,484) Less: other ------(963,132) (963,132) Reclassification - - (1,492,923) - - (312,420) - (1,805,343)

Excess Capital Funds at June 30, 2018 $ - $ 2,210,315 $ - $ 244,942 $ 16,381,545 $ 15,627,226 $ - $ 34,464,028

Advances on capital grant revenue by category for June 30, 2018 and 2017 are as follows:

Category Amount

Revenue Vehicles $ 2,262,858

Non Revenue Vehicles 39,892

Building, Facilities, Mobility Hubs, and Stops 32,008,770

Communication and Information Systems 152,508

Total Advances on Grant Revenue by Category at June 30, 2018$ 34,464,028

27 Item 10 248

NOTE 6 – ADVANCES (Continued)

Category Amount

Revenue Vehicles $ 173,605

Building, Facilities 31,997,286

Communication and Information Systems 390,400

Total Advances on Grant Revenue by Category at June 30, 2017$ 32,561,291

Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA):

In November 2006, California voters passed a bond measure enacting the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 1B). Of the $19.925 billion of state general obligation bonds authorized, $4 billion was set aside by the state, as instructed by statute, as the PTMISEA. These funds are available to the California Department of Transportation for intercity rail projects and to transit operators in California for rehabilitation, safety, or modernization improvements; capital service enhancements or expansions; new capital projects; bus rapid transit improvements; or for rolling stock procurement, rehabilitation, or replacement.

During the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, the RTA earned interest of $171,017 and $88,496, respectively, on deposits of unspent PTMISEA funds. There were no disbursements of PTMISEA funds in either fiscal year 2018 or 2017. The RTA did not receive any PTMISEA funds during the year ended June 30, 2018 and received $7,331,912 during the year ended June 30, 2017.

Schedule of PTMISEA Proposition 1B Funds For the Year Ended June 30, 2018

Description Amount

Balance - beginning of the year $ 12,391,355

Receipts: PTMISEA receipts - Interest accrued 7/1/2017 through 6/30/2018 171,017

Expenses: PTMISEA expenditures -

Balance - end of year $ 12,562,372

Schedule of PTMISEA Proposition 1B Funds For the Year Ended June 30, 2017

Description Amount

Balance - beginning of the year $ 4,970,947

Receipts: PTMISEA receipts 7,331,912 Interest accrued 7/1/2016 through 6/30/2017 88,496

Expenses: PTMISEA expenditures -

Balance - end of year $ 12,391,355

28 Item 10 249

NOTE 6 – ADVANCES (Continued)

Transit System Safety, Security, and Disaster Response Account:

Of the $19.925 billion of state general obligation bonds authorized by Proposition 1B, $1 billion was set aside by the state, as instructed by statute, as the Transit System Safety, Security, and Disaster Response Account (TSSSDRA), with $600 million specifically allocated for the California Transit Security Grant Program, California Transit Assistance Fund (CTSGP-CTAF). These funds are available to the California Office of Emergency Services (CalOES) and to transit operators in California for capital projects that provide increased protection against a security and safety threat, and for capital expenditures to increase the capacity of transit operators.

During the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, the RTA received $1,641,600 and $0, respectively, in Proposition 1B CTSGP-CTAF funds; earned interest of $51,624 and $26,839, respectively, on deposits of unspent CTSGP-CTAF funds; and disbursed $690,661 and $1,361,870, respectively, of the CTSGP- CTAF funds.

Schedule of CTSGP-CTAF Proposition 1B Funds For the Year Ended June 30, 2018

Description Amount

Balance - beginning of the year $ 2,816,610

Receipts: CTSGP-CTAF receipts 1,641,600 Interest accrued 7/1/2017 through 6/30/2018 51,624

Expenses: CTSGP-CTAF expenditures 690,661

Balance - end of year $ 3,819,173

Schedule of CTSGP-CTAF Proposition 1B Funds For the Year Ended June 30, 2017

Description Amount

Balance - beginning of the year $ 4,151,641

Receipts: CTSGP-CTAF receipts - Interest accrued 7/1/2016 through 6/30/2017 26,839

Expenses: CTSGP-CTAF expenditures 1,361,870

Balance - end of year $ 2,816,610

NOTE 7 – INSURANCE

Through April 30, 2017, RTA was a participant in the California Transit Indemnity Pool (CalTIP) formed under a joint powers agreement for the purpose of providing general liability insurance for the member agencies. The RTA’s self-insured retention for liability claims was $25,000 per claim and total coverage limit was $25,000,000. 29 Item 10 250

NOTE 7 – INSURANCE (Continued)

On and after May 1, 2017, RTA’s general liability insurance is covered under stand-alone policies. The RTA’s self-insured retention for liability claims is now $400,000 per claim and the total coverage limit is $25,000,000.

The RTA is self-insured for workers’ compensation claims. Liabilities under this program are accrued and charged to expense when the claims are reasonably determinable and when the existence of the RTA’s liability is probable. Liabilities include an amount for claims that have been incurred but not reported. For the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, the RTA’s self-insured retention was $750,000 per accident/per employee. The RTA maintains workers’ compensation insurance coverage with CSAC-EIA for claims with losses in excess of $750,000.

Settled claims have not exceeded insurance coverage in any of the past three years ended June 30. The RTA’s liability for claims where it has retained the risk of loss (based on an annual actuarial study) is as follows:

Workers' Vehicle Compensation Liability Total

Estimated Liabilities at June 30, 2016$ 2,600,555 $ 362,830 $ 2,963,385

Reserves: New claims 378,474 130,893 509,367 Routine adjustments to existing claims 116,362 (111,045) 5,317 Payments (481,298) (137,414) (618,712)

Estimated Liabilities at June 30, 2017 2,614,093 245,264 2,859,357

Reserves: New claims 181,149 117,746 298,895 Routine adjustments to existing claims 217,171 106,549 323,720 Payments (598,905) (163,883) (762,788)

Estimated Liabilities at June 30, 2018 $ 2,413,508 $ 305,676 $ 2,719,184

NOTE 8 – PENSION PLAN

A. General Information about the Pension Plan

Plan Description – All qualified employees are eligible to participate in the RTA’s Plan, an agent multiple-employer defined benefit pension plan administered by CalPERS, which acts as a common investment and administrative agent for its participating member employers. Benefit provisions under the Plan are established by state statute and RTA resolution. CalPERS issues publicly available reports that include a full description of the pension plans regarding benefit provisions, assumptions, and membership information that can be found on the CalPERS website.

Benefits Provided – CalPERS provides service retirement and disability benefits, annual cost of living adjustments (COLA), and death benefits to plan members, who must be public employees, and beneficiaries. Benefits are based on years of credited service, equal to one year of full time employment. Classic Members (participants in the CalPERS, or reciprocal agency, system prior to January 1, 2013) with five years of total service are eligible to retire at age 50 with statutorily reduced benefits. California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) Members (participants in the CalPERS, or reciprocal agency, system on or after January 1, 2013) with five years of total service are eligible to retire at age 52 with statutorily reduced benefits. All members are eligible for non-duty disability benefits after 5 years of service. The COLA for the Plan are applied as specified by the California Public Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL).

30 Item 10 251

NOTE 8 – PENSION PLAN (Continued)

A. General Information about the Pension Plans (Continued)

The Plan’s funding provisions and benefits in effect at June 30, 2018, are summarized as follows:

Prior to On or after January 1, 2013 January 1, 2013 (Classic (PEPRA Hire Date Members) Members)

Benefit Formula 2%@55 2%@62 Benefit Vesting Schedule 5 years service 5 years service Benefit Payments monthly for life monthly for life Retirement Age 50 52 Monthly Benefits, as a Percentage of Eligible Compensation 1.426%-2.418% 1.000%-2.500% Required Employee Contribution Rates 7.000% 6.250% Required Employer Contribution Rates 8.018% 8.018%

Employees Covered – At June 30, 2018 and 2017, the following employees were covered by the benefit terms for the Plan:

2018 2017

Inactive Employees or Beneficiaries Currently Receiving Benefits 213 195 Inactive Employees Entitled to but not yet Receiving Benefits 224 209 Active Employees 405 369

Total 842 773

Contributions – Section 20814(c) of PERL requires that the employer contribution rates for all public employers be determined on an annual basis by the actuary and shall be effective on the July 1 following notice of a change in the rate. Funding contributions for the Plan are determined annually on an actuarial basis as of June 30 by CalPERS. The actuarially determined rate is the estimated amount necessary to finance the costs of benefits earned by employees during the year, with an additional amount to finance any unfunded accrued liability. The RTA is required to contribute the difference between the actuarially determined rate and the contribution rate of employees. For the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, the average active employee contribution rate is 7.000% of annual pay and the employer’s contribution rate is 8.018% and 11.093% of annual payroll, respectively.

B. Net Pension Liability

The RTA’s net pension liability for the Plan is measured as the total pension liability, less the pension plan’s fiduciary net position. The net pension liability of the Plan is measured as of June 30, 2017 and 2016, using an annual actuarial valuation as of June 30, 2016 and 2015, rolled forward to June 30, 2017 and 2016, using standard update procedures. All assumptions, methods, and calculations used to compute Net Pension Liability are determined and prepared by CalPERS. A summary of principal assumptions and methods used to determine the net pension liability is shown below.

31 Item 10 252

NOTE 8 – PENSION PLAN (Continued)

B. Net Pension Liability (Continued)

Actuarial Assumptions – The total pension liabilities in the June 30, 2016 and 2015 actuarial valuations were determined using the following actuarial assumptions:

Reporting Date June 30, 2018 June 30, 2017 Valuation Date June 30, 2016 June 30, 2015 Measurement Date June 30, 2017 June 30, 2016 Actuarial Cost Method Entry Age Normal Entry Age Normal Actuarial Assumptions: Discount Rate 7.15% 7.65% Inflation 2.75% 2.75% Payroll Growth 3.00% 3.00%

Projected Salary Increase Varies by Entry Varies by Entry Age and Service (1) Age and Service (1) Investment Rate of Return 7.50% (2) 7.50% (2) Derived using Derived using CalPERS' CalPERS' Mortality Membership Data Membership Data for all Funds (3) for all Funds (3)

(1) Depending on age, service, and type of employment. (2) Net of pension plan investment and administrative expenses, including inflation. (3) The mortality table used was developed based on CalPERS' specific data. The table includes 20 years of mortality improvements using Society of Actuaries Scale BB.

Discount Rate – The discount rate used to measure the total pension liabilities for June 30, 2018 and 2017, was 7.15% and 7.65%, respectively. To determine whether the municipal bond rate should be used in the calculation of a discount rate for each plan, CalPERS stress tested plans that would most likely result in a discount rate that would be different from the actuarially assumed discount rate. Based on the testing, none of the tested plans run out of assets. Therefore, the current 7.15% and 7.65% discount rates for 2018 and 2017, respectively, are adequate and the use of the municipal bond rate calculation is not necessary. The long-term expected discount rates of 7.15% and 7.65% for 2018 and 2017, respectively, will be applied to all plans in the Public Employees Retirement Fund (PERF). The stress test results are presented in a detailed report that can be obtained from the CalPERS website.

According to Paragraph 30 of GASB Statement No. 68, the long-term discount rate should be determined without reduction for pension plan administrative expense. For the reporting periods ended June 30, 2018 and June 30, 2017, the 7.15% and 7.65% discount rates, respectively, were not reduced for administrative expense.

CalPERS reviews all actuarial assumptions as part of its regular Asset Liability Management (ALM) review cycle every four years. Any changes to the discount rate will require CalPERS Board of Directors action and proper stakeholder outreach.

The long-term expected rate of return on pension plan investments was determined using a building- block method in which best-estimate ranges of expected future real rates of return (expected returns, net of pension plan investment expense and inflation) are developed for each major asset class.

32 Item 10 253

NOTE 8 – PENSION PLAN (Continued)

B. Net Pension Liability (Continued)

In determining the long-term expected rate of return, CalPERS took into account both short-term and long-term market return expectations as well as the expected pension fund cash flows. Using historical returns of all the funds’ asset classes, expected compound returns were calculated over the short-term (first 10 years) and the long-term (11-60 years) using a building-block approach. Using the expected nominal returns for both short-term and long-term, the present value of benefits was calculated for each fund. The expected rate of return was set by calculating the single equivalent expected return that arrived at the same present value of benefits for cash flows as the one calculated using both short-term and long-term returns. The expected rate of return was then set equivalent to the single equivalent rate calculated above and rounded down to the nearest one quarter of one percent.

The tables below reflect the long-term expected real rate of return by asset class. The rate of return was calculated using the capital market assumptions applied to determine the discount rate and asset allocation. These rates of return are net of administrative expenses.

2017 New Strategic Real Return Real Return Asset Class Allocation Years 1 - 10 (a) Years 11+ (b)

Global Equity 47.00% 4.90% 5.38% Global Fixed Income 19.00% 0.80% 2.27% Inflation Sensitive 6.00% 0.60% 1.39% Private Equity 12.00% 6.60% 6.63% Real Estate 11.00% 2.80% 5.21% Infrastructure and Forestland 3.00% 3.90% 5.36% Liquidity 2.00% -0.40% -0.90%

Total 100.00%

(a) An expected inflation of 2.5% used for this period. (b) An expected inflation of 3.0% used for this period.

2016 New Strategic Real Return Real Return Asset Class Allocation Years 1 - 10 (a) Years 11+ (b)

Global Equity 51.00% 5.25% 5.71% Global Fixed Income 19.00% 0.99% 2.43% Inflation Sensitive 6.00% 0.45% 3.36% Private Equity 10.00% 6.83% 6.95% Real Estate 10.00% 4.50% 5.13% Infrastructure and Forestland 2.00% 4.50% 5.09% Liquidity 2.00% -0.55% -1.05%

Total 100.00%

(a) An expected inflation of 2.5% used for this period. (b) An expected inflation of 3.0% used for this period.

33 Item 10 254

NOTE 8 – PENSION PLAN (Continued)

C. Changes in the Net Pension Liability

The changes in the net pension liability for the Plan are as follows:

Increase (Decrease) Total Pension Plan Fiduciary Net Pension Liability Net Position Liability/(Asset)

Balance at June 30, 2016 (1) $ 87,747,563 $ 69,060,747 $ 18,686,816

Changes in the Year: Service Cost 3,438,558 - 3,438,558 Interest on the Total Pension Liability 6,672,959 - 6,672,959 Differences between Actual and Expected Experience (272,760) - (272,760) Changes in Assumptions 5,702,371 - 5,702,371 Net plan to plan resource movement - 9,736 (9,736) Contribution - Employer - 2,449,405 (2,449,405) Contribution - Employee - 1,511,452 (1,511,452) Net Investment Income (2) - 7,737,754 (7,737,754) Administrative Expenses - (101,964) 101,964 Benefit Payments, Including Refunds of Employee Contributions (3,136,731) (3,136,731) -

Net Changes 12,404,397 8,469,652 3,934,745

(1) Balance at June 30, 2017 $ 100,151,960 $ 77,530,399 $ 22,621,561

(1) The fiduciary net position includes receivables for employee service buybacks, deficiency reserves, and fiduciary self-insurance. This may differ from the Plan assets reported in the funding actuarial valuation report. (2) Net of administrative expenses.

34 Item 10 255

NOTE 8 – PENSION PLAN (Continued)

C. Changes in the Net Pension Liability (Continued)

Increase (Decrease) Total Pension Plan Fiduciary Net Pension Liability Net Position Liability/(Asset)

Balance at June 30, 2015 (1) $ 80,607,022 $ 68,233,414 $ 12,373,608

Changes in the Year: Service Cost 2,900,875 - 2,900,875 Interest on the Total Pension Liability 6,237,110 - 6,237,110 Differences between Actual and Expected Experience 944,219 - 944,219 Changes in Assumptions - - - Changes in Benefit Terms - - - Contribution - Employer - 2,034,496 (2,034,496) Contribution - Employee - 1,394,191 (1,394,191) Net Investment Income (2) - 381,894 (381,894) Administrative Expenses - (41,585) 41,585 Benefit Payments, Including Refunds of Employee Contributions (2,941,663) (2,941,663) -

Net Changes 7,140,541 827,333 6,313,208

(1) Balance at June 30, 2016 $ 87,747,563 $ 69,060,747 $ 18,686,816

(1) The fiduciary net position includes receivables for employee service buybacks, deficiency reserves, and fiduciary self-insurance. This may differ from the Plan assets reported in the funding actuarial valuation report. (2) Net of administrative expenses.

Sensitivity of the Net Pension Liability to Changes in the Discount Rate – The following presents the net pension liabilities of the Plan, calculated using the discount rate for the Plan, as well as what the RTA’s net pension liability would be if it were calculated using a discount rate that is one percentage point lower or one percentage point higher than the current rate:

2017

1% Decrease 6.15% Net Pension Liability$ 36,811,511

Current Discount Rate 7.15% Net Pension Liability$ 22,621,561

1% Increase 8.15% Net Pension Liability$ 10,916,254

35 Item 10 256

NOTE 8 – PENSION PLAN (Continued)

C. Changes in the Net Pension Liability (Continued)

2016

1% Decrease 6.65% Net Pension Liability$ 30,872,247

Current Discount Rate 7.65% Net Pension Liability$ 18,686,816

1% Increase 8.65% Net Pension Liability$ 8,605,678

Pension Plan Fiduciary Net Position – Detailed information about the pension plan’s fiduciary net position is available in the separately issued CalPERS financial reports.

D. Pension Expenses and Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources Related to Pensions

For the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, the RTA recognized a pension expense of $5,055,055 and $3,004,851, respectively. At June 30, 2018 and 2017, the RTA reported deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions from the following sources:

2018 Deferred Outflows Deferred Inflows of Resources of Resources

Pension Contributions Subsequent to Measurement Date $ 2,701,913 $ - Differences between Actual and Expected Experience 461,301 (200,981) Changes in Assumptions 4,201,747 (391,812) Net Differences between Projected and Actual Earnings on Plan Investments 988,735 -

Total $ 8,353,696 $ (592,793)

2017 Deferred Outflows Deferred Inflows of Resources of Resources

Pension Contributions Subsequent to Measurement Date $ 2,449,747 $ - Differences between Actual and Expected Experience 704,585 - Changes in Assumptions - (748,004) Net Differences between Projected and Actual Earnings on Plan Investments 6,033,392 (2,260,078)

Total $ 9,187,724 $ (3,008,082)

36 Item 10 257

NOTE 8 – PENSION PLAN (Continued)

D. Pension Expenses and Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources Related to Pensions (Continued)

The $2,701,913 and $2,449,747 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to contributions subsequent to the measurement date will be recognized as a reduction of the net pension liability in the measurement years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, respectively. Other amounts reported as deferred outflows of resources and deferred inflows of resources related to pensions will be recognized as pension expense as follows:

Measurement Period Ended June 30

2018$ 1,317,498 2019 2,742,843 2020 1,555,253 2021 (556,604) 2022 - Thereafter -

Total$ 5,058,990

E. Payable to the Pension Plan

At June 30, 2018 and 2017, the RTA reported a payable of $0 for the outstanding amount of contributions to the pension plan required for the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

NOTE 9 – OPEB

A. General Information about the OPEB Plan

Plan Description – The RTA participates in the California Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT), a trust established by Chapter 331 of the 1988 Statutes and initially funded in 2007. The purpose of the trust is to receive contributions from participating employers and establish separate employer prefunding accounts to pay for OPEB. The CERBT is an agent multiple-employer plan and is administered by CalPERS. The OPEB Plan provides postretirement health care benefits to all employees meeting certain selected criteria. Employees on the payroll as of June 22, 2006, who retire from the RTA with 5 years of CalPERS service credit will receive the same medical contribution as active employees. Employees hired after June 22, 2006 will, upon retirement and 10 years of active service with the RTA and 5 years CalPERS service credit, receive the same medical contribution as active employees, but not any dependent contribution.

The following is a description of the current retiree benefit plan:

Administrative and Union Employees hired on or

before 6/22/06. Benefit Types Provided Medical only Duration of Benefits Lifetime Required Service 5 years CalPERS service credit Minimum Age 50 RTA Dependent Contribution Maximum $432 contribution per month RTA Retiree Contribution Maximum $785 contribution per month

37 Item 10 258

NOTE 9 – OPEB (Continued)

A. General Information about the OPEB Plan (Continued)

Administrative and Union Employees hired after 6/22/06 and before 1/1/13. Also includes employees hired on or after 1/1/13 if they meet the exclusion from PEPRA. Benefit Types Provided Medical only Duration of Benefits Lifetime 10 years service with RTA and 5 years CalPERS service Required Service credit Minimum Age 50 RTA Dependent Contribution None RTA Retiree Contribution Maximum $785 contribution per month

Administrative and Union Employees hired on or

after 1/1/13 who are subject to PEPRA. Benefit Types Provided Medical only Duration of Benefits Lifetime 10 years service with RTA and 5 years CalPERS service Required Service credit Minimum Age 52 RTA Dependent Contribution None RTA Retiree Contribution Maximum $785 contribution per month

Employees Covered – As of the June 30, 2017 valuation, the following current and former employees were covered by the benefit terms for the OPEB plan:

2018

Inactive Employees or Beneficiaries Currently Receiving Benefits 136 Inactive Employees Entitled to but not yet Receiving Benefits - (1) Active Employees 421

Total 557

(1) Information about any terminated, vested employees was not provided.

Contributions – The contribution requirements of plan members and the RTA are established and may be amended by the RTA Board. These contributions are neither mandated nor guaranteed. The RTA has retained the right to unilaterally modify its payment for retiree health care benefits. Refer to the table above for the contribution requirements. For the year ended June 30, 2018, the RTA contributed $1,447,704. Employees are not required to contribute to the OPEB plan.

38 Item 10 259

NOTE 9 – OPEB (Continued)

A. General Information about the OPEB Plan (Continued)

Net OPEB Asset – The RTA’s net OPEB asset was measured as of June 30, 2017, and the total OPEB asset used to calculate the net OPEB asset was the Plan Fiduciary Net Position of the OPEB trust held with CalPERS. The following actuarial methods and assumptions were used:

Reporting Date June 30, 2018 Valuation Date June 30, 2017 Measurement Date June 30, 2017 Actuarial Assumptions: Discount Rate 6.00% Inflation 2.75% Salary Increases 2.75% Investment Rate of Return 6.00%

Mortality Rate Derived using CalPERS' Membership Data for all Funds (1)

Pre-Retirement Turnover Derived using CalPERS' Membership Data for all Funds (2)

(1) Pre-retirement mortality information was derived from data collected during 1997 to 2011 CalPERS Experience Study dated January 2014 and post-retirement mortality information was derived from the 2007 to 2011 CalPERS Experience Study. The Experience Study Reports may be accessed on the CalPERS website www.calpers.ca.gov under Forms and Publications. (2) The pre-retirement turnover information was developed based on CalPERS’ specific data. For more details, please refer to the 2007 to 2011 Experience Study Report. The Experience Study Report may be accessed on the CalPERS website www.calpers.ca.gov under Forms and Publications.

The long-term expected rate of return on OPEB plan investments was determined using a building block method in which expected future real rates of return (expected returns, net of OPEB plan investment expense and inflation) are developed for each major asset class. These ranges are combined to produce the long-term expected rate of return by weighting the expected future real rates of return by the target asset allocation percentage and by adding expected inflation. The target allocation and best estimates of arithmetic real rates of return for each major asset class are summarized in the following table:

Long-term Target Expected Real Asset Class Allocation Rate of Return

US Large Cap 24.00% 7.80% Long-Term Corporate Bonds 34.00% 5.30% Long-Term Government Bonds 8.00% 4.50% US Small Cap 8.00% 7.80% Treasury Inflation Protected Securities 15.00% 7.80% US Real Estate 8.00% 7.80% All Commodities 3.00% 7.80%

Total 100.00%

39 Item 10 260

NOTE 9 – OPEB (Continued)

A. General Information about the OPEB Plan (Continued)

Discount Rate – The discount rate used to measure the total OPEB liability was 6.00%. The projection of cash flows used to determine the discount rate assumed that the RTA contributions will be sufficient to fully fund the obligation over a period not to exceed 30 years. Historic 30 year real rates of return for each asset class along with the assumed long-term inflation assumption were used to set the discount rate. The expected investment return was offset by the investment expenses of 15 basis points. Based on those assumptions, the OPEB Plan’s fiduciary net position was projected to be available to make all projected OPEB payments for current active and inactive employees and beneficiaries. Therefore, the long-term expected rate of return on OPEB Plan investments was applied to all periods of projected benefit payments to determine the total OPEB liability.

Changes in the Net OPEB Asset – The changes in the net OPEB asset for the Plan are as follows:

Increase (Decrease) Total OPEB Plan Fiduciary Net OPEB Liability Net Position Liability/(Asset)

Balance at June 30, 2016$ 29,151,540 $ 36,532,798 $ (7,381,258)

Changes in the Year: Service Cost 1,216,527 - 1,216,527 Interest on the Total OPEB Liability 1,695,027 - 1,695,027 Contribution - Employer - 2,454,124 (2,454,124) Contribution - Employee - - - Actual Investment Income - 1,494,912 (1,494,912) Administrative Expenses - (31,062) 31,062 Benefit Payments (995,085) (995,085) -

Net Changes 1,916,469 2,922,889 (1,006,420)

Balance at June 30, 2017 $ 31,068,009 $ 39,455,687 $ (8,387,678)

Sensitivity of the Net OPEB Asset to Changes in the Discount Rate – The following presents the net OPEB asset of the RTA if it were calculated using a discount rate that is one percentage point lower or one percentage point higher than the current rate, for measurement period ended June 30, 2017:

1% Decrease 5.00% Net OPEB Asset $ (3,996,918)

Current Discount Rate 6.00% Net OPEB Asset $ (8,387,678)

1% Increase 7.00% Net OPEB Asset $ (11,975,254)

OPEB Plan Fiduciary Net Position – Detailed information about the OPEB Plan’s fiduciary net position is available in the separately issued CalPERS financial reports.

Recognition of Deferred Outflows and Deferred Inflows of Resources – Gains and losses related to changes in total OPEB liability and fiduciary net position are recognized in OPEB expense systematically over time. Amounts are first recognized in OPEB expense for the year the gain or loss occurs. The remaining amounts are categorized as deferred outflows and deferred inflows of resources related to OPEB and are to be recognized in future OPEB expense.

40 Item 10 261

NOTE 9 – OPEB (Continued)

A. General Information about the OPEB Plan (Continued)

OPEB Expense and Deferred Outflows/Inflows of Resources Related to OPEB – For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018, the RTA recognized OPEB expense of $1,447,704. As of fiscal year ended June 30, 2018, the RTA reported deferred outflows of resources related to OPEB from the following sources:

Deferred Outflows Deferred Inflows of Resources of Resources

OPEB Contributions Subsequent to Measurement Date$ 1,447,704 $ - Differences between Actual and Expected Experience - - Changes in Assumptions - - Net Differences between Projected and Actual Earnings on Plan Investments - -

Total$ 1,447,704 $ -

The $1,447,704 reported as deferred outflows of resources related to contributions subsequent to the June 30, 2017 measurement date will be recognized as an increase to the net OPEB asset during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2019.

NOTE 10 – CONTINGENCIES AND COMMITMENTS

A. Lawsuits

The RTA is a defendant in various litigation. Although the outcome of this litigation is not presently determinable, it is the opinion of the RTA’s legal counsel and the RTA’s management that the resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on the financial condition of the RTA.

B. Federal and State Grant Programs

The RTA participates in federal and state grant programs. These programs are audited by the RTA’s independent accountants in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and applicable state requirements. No cost disallowance is expected as a result of these audits; however, these programs are subject to further examination by the grantors. Awards which may be disallowed, if any, by the granting agencies cannot be determined at this time. The RTA expects such amounts, if any, to be immaterial.

C. Commitments

As of June 30, 2018 and 2017, in the opinion of RTA management, there were no outstanding matters that would have a significant effect on the financial position of the RTA.

NOTE 11 – TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CONFORMANCE MATTERS

The RTA is subject to the provision of the Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99270.1 and must maintain a minimum fare ratio of 17.44% and 17.48% in 2018 and 2017, respectively, of farebox allowable operating revenues over operating expenses. After allocation of indirect costs to each type of service and taking into consideration certain cost exemption provisions of the TDA, the RTA’s fare ratio for the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017 was 21.69% and 20.64%, respectively, as calculated below, which indicates that the RTA in the years ended June 30, 2018 and 2017 was in compliance with the provisions of PUC Section 99270.

41 Item 10 262

NOTE 11 – TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT CONFORMANCE MATTERS (Continued)

2018 2017

Operating Revenues: 10,712,941$ 10,356,851 Add: Measure A - operating grant 3,395,333 2,841,324 LCTOP - operating grant 408,481 - CNG Revenue 107,426 179,230 Renewable Identification Numbers (RINS) and Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Revenue 1,393,382 818,698 Shelter advertising - other nonoperating revenue 14,910 18,274 Gain on sale of assets 3,833 4,034 Investment income 472,563 196,332 Lease revenue 63,972 62,109 Other operating revenue 66,493 112,389 Less: Fare revenues for exempt routes (87,497) (50,435)

Net operating revenues $ 16,551,837 $ 14,538,806

Operating Expenses: $ 93,594,209 $ 87,315,980 Less: Depreciation and amortization expense (14,221,349) (13,226,966) Other grant fund expenses (137,855) - Operating expenses for exempt routes (2,914,420) (3,651,422)

Net operating expenses $ 76,320,585 $ 70,437,592

Fare Ratio 21.69% 20.64%

NOTE 12 – COMPENSATED ABSENCES

The following is a summary of current and long-term compensated absences for the year ended June 30:

2018 2017

Beginning Balance - July 1 $ 1,676,841 $ 1,510,765

Additions 4,162,535 3,841,678 Reductions (3,953,056) (3,675,602)

Ending Balance June 30 $ 1,886,320 $ 1,676,841

Amounts Due Within One Year $ 1,886,320 $ 1,676,841

42 Item 10 263

NOTE 13 – PRIOR PERIOD ADJUSTMENT

A prior period adjustment was made to Net Position as follows:

Net Position, as Previously Reported $ 88,633,747

Implementation of GASB Statement No. 75 Change in Accounting Principle 5,814,788

Net Position Beginning of Year, as Restated $ 94,448,535

NOTE 14 – SUBSEQUENT EVENTS

Subsequent events have been evaluated through October 5, 2018, the date these financial statements were available to be issued.

43 Item 10 264

REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Item 10 265

RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION AN AGENT MULTIPLE-EMPLOYER DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN SCHEDULE OF CHANGES IN THE NET PENSION LIABILITY AND RELATED RATIOS FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2018*

June 30, 2017 June 30, 2016 June 30, 2015 June 30, 2014 Total Pension Liability

Service Cost$ 3,438,558 $ 2,900,875 $ 2,592,282 $ 2,559,439 Interest on Total Pension Liability 6,672,959 6,237,110 5,734,661 5,331,306 Differences between Expected and Actual Experience (272,760) 944,219 4,827 - Changes in Assumptions 5,702,371 - (1,460,388) - Changes in Benefits - - - - Benefit Payments, Including Refunds of Employee Contributions (3,136,731) (2,941,663) (2,773,334) (2,372,262)

Net Change in Total Pension Liability 12,404,397 7,140,541 4,098,048 5,518,483

Total Pension Liability - Beginning 87,747,563 80,607,022 76,508,974 70,990,491

Total Pension Liability - Ending (a) $ 100,151,960 $ 87,747,563 $ 80,607,022 $ 76,508,974

Plan Fiduciary Net Position

Contributions - Employer $ 2,449,405 $ 2,034,496 $ 1,669,651 $ 1,502,200 Contributions - Employee 1,511,452 1,394,191 1,396,819 1,247,620 Net Investment Income 7,737,754 381,894 1,491,792 9,876,036 Benefit Payments (3,136,731) (2,941,663) (2,773,334) (2,372,262) Net plan to plan resource movement 9,736 - - - Administrative Expenses (101,964) (41,585) (76,743) -

Net Change in Plan Fiduciary Net Position 8,469,652 827,333 1,708,185 10,253,594

Plan Fiduciary Net Position - Beginning 69,060,747 68,233,414 66,525,229 56,271,635

Plan Fiduciary Net Position - Ending (b) $ 77,530,399 $ 69,060,747 $ 68,233,414 $ 66,525,229

Net Pension Liability - Ending [(a) - (b)] $ 22,621,561 $ 18,686,816 $ 12,373,608 $ 9,983,745

Plan Fiduciary Net Position as a Percentage of the Total Pension Liability 77.41% 78.70% 84.65% 86.95%

Covered-Employee Payroll $ 21,712,178 $ 20,105,869 $ 17,685,105 $ 17,075,449

Net Pension Liability as a Percentage of Covered- Employee Payroll 104.19% 92.94% 69.97% 58.47%

* Fiscal year 2015 was the 1st year of implementation; therefore, only four years are shown.

44 Item 10 266

RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION AN AGENT MULTIPLE-EMPLOYER DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN SCHEDULE OF CHANGES IN THE NET PENSION LIABILITY AND RELATED RATIOS (Continued) FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2018*

Notes to Schedule:

Benefit changes. In 2018 and 2017, there were no benefit changes.

Changes in assumptions. In 2018 and 2017, amounts reported as changes in assumptions resulted primarily from adjustments to expected retirement ages of miscellaneous employees.

45 Item 10 267

RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY AN AGENT MULTIPLE-EMPLOYER DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN SCHEDULE OF CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2018*

June 30, 2017 June 30, 2016 June 30, 2015 June 30, 2014

Actuarially Determined Contributions$ 2,449,405 $ 2,034,496 $ 1,669,651 $ 1,502,200 Contributions in Relation to the Actuarially Determined Contributions (2,449,405) (2,034,496) (1,669,651) (1,502,200)

Contribution Deficiency (Excess)$ - $ - $ - $ -

Covered-Employee Payroll$ 21,712,178 $ 20,105,869 $ 17,685,105 $ 17,075,449

Contributions as a Percentage of Covered- Employee Payroll 11.28% 10.12% 9.44% 8.80%

* Fiscal year 2015 was the 1st year of implementation; therefore, only four years are shown.

Notes to Schedule:

Valuation date: June 30, 2016 Measurement date: June 30, 2017

Methods and assumptions used to determine contribution rates:

Actuarial Cost Method Entry Age Normal Amortization method Level percentage of payroll Remaining amortization period 15 years Asset valuation method Actuarial Value of Assets Inflation 2.75% Salary increases Varies by Entry Age and Service Investment rate of return 7.50%, net of pension plan investment expense, including inflation Retirement age 67 years Mortality RP-2000 Healthy Annuitant Mortality Table

46 Item 10 268

RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY SCHEDULE OF CHANGES IN THE NET OPEB ASSET AND RELATED RATIOS FOR THE MEASUREMENT PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30

Measurement Period 2017 Total OPEB Liability

Service Cost $ 1,216,527 Interest on the Total OPEB Liability 1,695,027 Actual and Expected Experience Difference - Changes in Assumptions - Changes in Benefits Terms - Benefit Payments (995,085)

Net Change in Total OPEB Liability 1,916,469

Total OPEB Liability - Beginning 29,151,540

Total OPEB Liability - Ending (a)$ 31,068,009

Plan Fiduciary Net Position

Contributions - Employer$ 2,454,124 Net Investment Income 1,494,912 Benefit Payments (995,085) Administrative Expenses (31,062)

Net Change in Plan Fiduciary Net Position 2,922,889

Plan Fiduciary Net Position - Beginning 36,532,798

Plan Fiduciary Net Position - Ending (b)$ 39,455,687

Net OPEB Asset - Ending [(a) - (b)]$ (8,387,678)

Plan Fiduciary Net Position as a Percentage of the Total OPEB Liability 127.00%

Covered-Employee Payroll$ 22,083,719

Net OPEB Asset as a Percentage of Covered- Employee Payroll 37.98%

Notes to the Schedule:

Historical information is required only for measurement periods for which GASB Statement No. 75 is applicable. Future years’ information will be displayed up to 10 years as information becomes available.

47 Item 10 269

OTHER REPORT

Item 10 270

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTES, RULES, AND REGULATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT AND THE ALLOCATION INSTRUCTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS OF THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

To the Board of Directors of the Riverside Transit Agency Riverside, California

We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the Unites States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Compliance Supplement; the statutes, rules, and regulations of the California Transportation Development Act (TDA); and the allocation instructions and resolutions of the Transportation Commission, the financial statements of the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2018, and have issued our report thereon dated October 5, 2018.

Compliance

As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the RTA’s financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. Additionally, we performed tests to determine that allocations made and expenditures paid by the RTA were made in accordance with the allocation instructions and resolutions of the Transportation Commission and in conformance with the California TDA. Specifically, we performed each of the specific tasks identified in the California Code of Regulations Sections 6666 and 6667 that are applicable to the RTA. Also as part of our audit, we performed tests of compliance to determine whether certain state funds were received and expended in accordance with the applicable bond act and state accounting requirements. In connection with our audit, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe the RTA failed to comply with the statutes, rules, and regulations of the California TDA or the allocation instructions and resolutions of the Transportation Commission. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Other Matters

In November 2006, California voters passed a bond measure enacting the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 1B). Of the $19.925 billion of state general obligation bonds authorized, $4 billion was set aside by the state as instructed by statute as the Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA). These funds are available to the California Department of

48 Item 10 271

Transportation for intercity rail projects and to transit operators in California for rehabilitation, safety, or modernization improvements; capital service enhancements or expansions; new capital projects; bus rapid transit improvements; or for rolling stock procurement, rehabilitation, or replacement.

During the year ended June 30, 2018, the RTA earned interest of $171,017 on deposits of unspent PTMISEA funds. There were no disbursements of PTMISEA funds in fiscal year 2018. The RTA did not receive any PTMISEA funds during the year ended June 30, 2018.

As of June 30, 2018, PTMISEA funds received and expended were verified in the course of our audit as follows:

Schedule of PTMISEA Proposition 1B Funds For the Year Ended June 30, 2018

Description Amount

Balance - beginning of the year $ 12,391,355

Receipts: PTMISEA receipts - Interest accrued 7/1/2017 through 6/30/2018 171,017

Expenses: PTMISEA expenditures -

Balance - end of year $ 12,562,372

The results of our tests indicated that, with respect to the items tested, the RTA complied, in all material respects, with the provisions referred to in the preceding paragraph. With respect to items not tested, nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that the RTA had not complied, in all material respects, with those provisions.

Purpose of this Report

The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of the RTA’s internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the RTA’s internal control or on compliance. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose.

Restriction on Use

The report is intended for the information of management, the Board of Directors, the State Controller’s Office, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and officials of applicable grantor agencies. However, this report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited.

BROWN ARMSTRONG ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION

Bakersfield, California October 5, 2018

49 Item 10 272

RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY

SINGLE AUDIT REPORT

FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018

Item 10 273

RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY SINGLE AUDIT REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of the Basic Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards ...... 1

Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance for Each Major Program and on Internal Control Over Compliance Required by the Uniform Guidance ...... 3

Financial Statements:

Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ...... 5

Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ...... 6

Findings and Questioned Costs Section:

Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs ...... 8

Item 10 274

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS

To the Board of Directors Riverside Transit Agency Riverside, California

We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2018, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the RTA’s basic financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated October 5, 2018.

Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the RTA’s internal control over financial reporting (internal control) to determine the audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the RTA’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the RTA’s internal control.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the RTA’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.

1 Item 10 275

Compliance and Other Matters

As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the RTA’s financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.

Purpose of this Report

The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the RTA’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the RTA’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose.

BROWN ARMSTRONG ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION

Bakersfield, California October 5, 2018

2 Item 10 276

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE FOR EACH MAJOR PROGRAM AND ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE REQUIRED BY THE UNIFORM GUIDANCE

To the Board of Directors Riverside Transit Agency Riverside, California

Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program

We have audited the Riverside Transit Agency’s (RTA) compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Compliance Supplement that could have a direct and material effect on each of the RTA’s major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2018. The RTA’s major federal programs are identified in the summary of auditor’s results section of the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs.

Management’s Responsibility

Management is responsible for compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of its federal awards applicable to its federal programs.

Auditor’s Responsibility

Our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance for each of the RTA’s major federal programs based on our audit of the types of compliance requirements referred to above. We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and the audit requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). Those standards and the Uniform Guidance require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the RTA’s compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.

We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion on compliance for each major federal program. However, our audit does not provide a legal determination of the RTA’s compliance.

Opinion on Each Major Federal Program

In our opinion, the RTA complied, in all material respects, with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on each of its major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2018.

3 Item 10 277

Report on Internal Control Over Compliance

Management of the RTA is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above. In planning and performing our audit of compliance, we considered the RTA’s internal control over compliance with the types of requirements that could have a direct and material effect on each major federal program to determine the auditing procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing an opinion on compliance for each major federal program and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with the Uniform Guidance, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the RTA’s internal control over compliance.

A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program that is less severe than a material weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.

The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose.

Report on Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Required by the Uniform Guidance

We have audited the financial statements of the RTA as of and for the year ended June 30, 2018, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the RTA’s basic financial statements. We issued our report thereon dated October 5, 2018, which contained unmodified opinions on those financial statements.

Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the basic financial statements. The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards is presented for purposes of additional analysis as required by the Uniform Guidance and is not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. The information has been subjected to the auditing procedures we applied in the audit of the financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the schedule of expenditures of federal awards is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.

BROWN ARMSTRONG ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION

Bakersfield, California October 5, 2018 4 Item 10 278

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Item 10 279

RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018

Cumulative Federal Federal Expenditures Expenditures Incurred Federal Passed Program or Incurred for the Federal Grantor / Pass-Through Grantor / CFDA Identifying Through to Award Through Year Ended Program or Cluster Title Number Number Subrecipients Amount June 30, 2018 June 30, 2018

U.S. Department of Transportation/ Federal Transit Administration

Federal Transit Cluster

Capital Investment Grants: 20.500 CA-03-0703 (FTA FY05 5309)$ - $ 3,495,329 $ 3,178,217 $ 284,707 20.500 CA-03-0781 (FTA FY06 5309) - 340,123 340,123 209,403 20.500 CA-04-0036 (FTA FY07 5309) - 1,332,679 934,480 106,662 20.500 CA-04-0082 (FTA FY08 5309) - 195,499 195,499 4,856 20.500 CA-04-0121 (FTA FY09 5309) - 895,000 895,000 53,312 20.500 CA-04-0154 (FTA FY10 5309) - 2,684,328 2,684,328 195,512

Formula Grants: 20.507 CA-90-Y954 (FTA FY12 5307) - 4,848,628 4,254,553 102,546 20.507 CA-90-Z034 (FTA FY13 5307) - 5,429,287 4,538,673 102,187 20.507 CA-95-X269 (FTA FY14 5307 CMAQ) - 4,125,000 3,682,840 515,689 20.507 CA-95-X296 (FTA FY14 5307 CMAQ) - 3,174,300 1,049,471 1,049,471 20.507 CA-90-Z262 (FTA FY15 5307) - 8,776,890 6,215,518 1,636,397 20.507 CA-2016-023 (FTA FY16 5307) - 7,928,251 2,646,703 659,805 20.526 CA-2016-148 (FTA FY16 5339-Hemet) - 1,026,455 - - 20.507 CA-2017-031 (FTA FY17 5307) - 13,660,000 13,552,848 12,848 20.507 CA-2017-031 (FTA FY17 5307) - 5,086,311 114,047 114,047 20.507 CA-2018-027 (FTA FY18 5307) - 17,208,000 16,541,928 16,541,928 20.507 CA-2018-027 (FTA FY18 5307) - 5,322,045 - - 20.526 CA-2018-066 (FTA FY18 5339-Hemet) - 1,625,762 - -

Total Federal Transit Cluster - 87,153,887 60,824,228 21,589,370

FTA Section 5310 Pass Through California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals Agreement Numbers 64AM16-00170 and with Disabilities 20.513 64AM16-00171 - 953,373 907,729 322,979

FTA Section 5311 Pass Through California Formula Grants for Rural Areas 20.509 Department of Transportation (CalTrans) - 568,468 568,468 568,468

FTA Section 5339 Pass Through Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Bus and Bus Facilities Formula Program 20.526 Agreement #M-009-16 - 3,222,982 722,635 214,057

Total Federal Transit Administration - 91,898,710 63,023,060 22,694,874

Total Expenditures of Federal Awards $ - $ 91,898,710 $ 63,023,060 $ 22,694,874

See Accompanying Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. 5 Item 10 280

RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY NOTES TO THE SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018

NOTE 1 – REPORTING ENTITY

The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) was established in August 1975 as a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) under authority of Title I, Division 7, Chapter 5, as amended by the Government Code of the State of California. By joint exercise of their common power, the County of Riverside and the nine cities of Western Riverside County created the RTA to serve as a separate public transportation agency. As of June 30, 2018, the RTA serves as a public transportation agency to the County of Riverside and eighteen cities of Western Riverside County. Members of the JPA reserve the right to provide transportation services within their respective jurisdictions, while the RTA serves as a unifying umbrella agency, coordinating transportation services throughout Western Riverside County. The RTA maintains and operates (directly or through contracts with other operators) the public bus transit system of Western Riverside County.

The RTA is a special purpose government with no component units and is eligible for funding under Section 99200 et. seq. of the California Public Utilities Code.

NOTE 2 – SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS

The accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Schedule) presents the activity of all Federal award programs of the RTA. All Federal awards received directly from Federal agencies as well as Federal awards passed through from other government agencies are included on the Schedule.

NOTE 3 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Basis of Accounting

The accompanying Schedule is presented using the accrual basis of accounting, which is described in Note 1 to the RTA’s financial statements.

Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards

The accompanying Schedule presents the activity of all Federal financial assistance programs of the RTA. Federal financial assistance received directly from Federal agencies as well as Federal financial assistance passed through the State of California are included in the Schedule. The Schedule was prepared from only the accounts of various grant programs and, therefore, does not present the financial position or results of operations of the RTA.

NOTE 4 – RELATIONSHIP TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Federal award monies are reported in the RTA’s financial statements as revenues from Federal operating and capital assistance grants.

6 Item 10 281

NOTE 5 – SUMMARY OF GRANTS

The RTA receives various Federal grant awards from the Department of Transportation – Federal Transit Administration. The following is a summary of the grant programs.

Federal Transit – Section 5307 Formula Grants (CFDA #20.507)

Funds are provided to assist in financing the acquisition, construction, cost-effective leasing, maintenance, planning, and improvement of facilities and equipment for use in mass transportation service, and for urbanized areas with populations under 200,000, to assist with the payment of operating expenses to improve or to continue mass transportation service.

Federal Transit – Sections 5309 and 5339 Capital Investment Grants (CFDA #20.500 and #20.526)

Funds are provided to assist in financing the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, and improvement of facilities, rolling stock, and equipment for use in mass public transportation service, and in coordinating service with highway and other transportation in such areas.

Federal Transit – Section 5310 Operating Grant (CFDA #20.513)

Funds are provided to meet the transportation needs of older adults and people with disabilities when the transportation service provided is unavailable, insufficient, or inappropriate to meeting these needs.

Federal Transit – Section 5311 Operating Grant (CFDA #20.509)

Funds are provided to improve, initiate, or continue public transportation service in non-urbanized areas by providing financial assistance for operating and administrative expenses and for the acquisition, construction, and improvement of facilities and equipment. Also, funds are available to provide technical assistance for rural transportation providers.

NOTE 6 – INDIRECT COST RATE

The RTA has elected not to use the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate allowed under the Uniform Guidance.

7 Item 10 282

FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS SECTION

Item 10 283

RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018

I. Summary of Auditor’s Results

Financial Statements

Type of auditor’s report issued: Unmodified

Internal control over financial reporting: Material weakness identified? Yes X No Significant deficiencies identified that are not considered to be material weaknesses? Yes X None reported

Noncompliance material to financial statements noted? Yes X No

Federal Awards

Internal control over major federal programs: Material weakness identified? Yes X No Significant deficiencies identified that are not considered to be material weaknesses? Yes X None reported

Type of auditor’s report issued on compliance for major programs: Unmodified

Any audit findings disclosed that are required to be reported in accordance with the Uniform Guidance? Yes X No

Identification of major programs:

CFDA Number(s) Name of Federal Program or Clusters

Federal Transit Cluster 20.500 Capital Investment Grants 20.507 Formula Grants 20.526 Bus and Bus Facilities Formula Program

Dollar threshold used to distinguish Type A and B programs: $750,000

Auditee qualified as low risk auditee? X Yes No

II. Findings Relating to Financial Statements Required Under Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS)

None.

III. Federal Award Findings and Questioned Costs

None.

8 Item 10 284

IV. State Award Findings and Questioned Costs

None.

V. Summary of Prior Audit (June 30, 2017) Findings and Current Year Status

None.

9 Item 10 285

To the Board of Directors of the Riverside Transit Agency Riverside, California

We have audited the financial statements of the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) for the year ended June 30, 2018. Professional standards require that we provide you with information about our responsibilities under auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, Government Auditing Standards, and the Uniform Guidance, as well as certain information related to the planned scope and timing of our audit. We have communicated such information in our letter to you dated May 14, 2018. Professional standards also require that we communicate to you the following information related to our audit.

Significant Audit Matters

Qualitative Aspects of Accounting Practices Management is responsible for the selection and use of appropriate accounting policies. The significant accounting policies used by the RTA are described in Note 1 to the financial statements. During the year ended June 30, 2018, the RTA implemented Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 75, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefits Other than Pension Plans. We noted no transactions entered into by the RTA during the year for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus. All significant transactions have been recognized in the financial statements in the proper period.

Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management’s knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ significantly from those expected. The most sensitive estimates affecting the RTA’s financial statements were:

Management’s estimate of the depreciation of vehicles is based on the units of consumption (mileage). We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the estimate of the depreciation in determining that it is reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole.

Management’s estimate of future claims related to Workers’ Compensation and Vehicle Liability is based on an actuarially determined estimate of possible future liabilities. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the estimate of the claims liability in determining that is reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole.

Management’s estimates of both its net pension liability and net other postemployment benefits are based on actuarial valuations that involve estimates of the value of reported amounts and assumptions about the probability of occurrence of events far into the future. We evaluated the key factors and assumptions used to develop the estimates of the pension and other postemployment benefits valuations in determining that they are reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole.

Item 10 286

Certain financial statement disclosures are particularly sensitive because of their significance to financial statement users. The most sensitive disclosures affecting the financial statements were:

The disclosures of Capital Assets and Related Depreciation, Liability Insurance, Pension Plan, and Other Postemployment Benefits in Notes 5, 7, 8, and 9 to the financial statements.

The financial statement disclosures are neutral, consistent, and clear.

Difficulties Encountered in Performing the Audit We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management in performing and completing our audit.

Corrected and Uncorrected Misstatements Professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that are clearly trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. No such misstatements occurred during the course of our audit.

Disagreements with Management For purposes of this letter, a disagreement with management is a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, that could be significant to the financial statements or the auditor’s report. We are pleased to report that no such disagreements arose during the course of our audit.

Management Representations We have requested certain representations from management that are included in the management representation letter dated October 5, 2018.

Management Consultations with Other Independent Accountants In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters, similar to obtaining a “second opinion” on certain situations. If a consultation involves application of an accounting principle to the RTA’s financial statements or a determination of the type of auditor’s opinion that may be expressed on those statements, our professional standards require the consulting accountant to check with us to determine that the consultant has all the relevant facts. To our knowledge, there were no such consultations with other accountants.

Other Audit Findings or Issues We generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, with management each year prior to retention as the RTA’s auditors. However, these discussions occurred in the normal course of our professional relationship and our responses were not a condition to our retention.

Other Matters

We applied certain limited procedures to the Schedule of Changes in the Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios, Schedule of Contributions, and Schedule of Changes in the Net Other Postemployment Benefits Asset, which are required supplementary information (RSI) that supplement the basic financial statements. Our procedures consisted of inquiries of management regarding the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We did not audit the RSI and do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the RSI.

Item 10 287

Restriction on Use

This information is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Directors and management of Riverside Transit Agency and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties.

BROWN ARMSTRONG ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION

Bakersfield, California October 5, 2018

Item 10 288