Sacramento County SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Department of Transportation 2017 to 2021

SACRAMENTO COUNTY Prepared For: Sacramento County SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN Department of Transportation 2017 TO 2021

Prepared by: Sacramento Area Council of Governments

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

FINAL DRAFT SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

FISCAL YEARS 2016/17 TO 2020/-21 Prepared by: Sacramento Area Council of Governments 1415 L Street, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Tel: 916.321.9000 www.sacog.org

Prepared for: Sacramento County Department of Transportation Tel: 916-874-6291

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

SACOG THANKS THE FOLLOWING FOR THEIR HELP IN DEVELOPING THIS SRTP: Dan Klinker, Associate Civil Engineer, Sacramento County

Becky Egleston, Site Manager, SCT/LINK Ann Dennis, Administrative Analyst, City of Galt Carla Meyer, Former General Manager, Amador Transit

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 2

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ...... 8

CHAPTER 2 - PLANNING CONTEXT ...... 10

CHAPTER 3 - OVERVIEW OF SCT/LINK SERVICE ...... 24

CHAPTER 4 - HIGHWAY 99 EXPRESS ...... 28

CHAPTER 5 - DELTA ROUTE ...... 36

CHAPTER 6 - GALT-SACRAMENTO COMMUTER EXPRESS ...... 42

CHAPTER 7 - SCT/LINK DIAL-A-RIDE ...... 46

CHAPTER 8 - EAST COUNTY SERVICE ...... 58

CHAPTER 9 - GOALS, POLICIES, & PRIOR RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 62

CHAPTER 10 - MARKETING ...... 76

CHAPTER 11 - FINANCIAL AND SERVICE PLAN ...... 84

APPENDIX A—STORER CONTRACT PERFORMANCE MEASURES

APPENDIX B— SAMPLE MONTHLY REPORTS FROM REGIONAL TRANSIT & PARATRANSIT, INC

APPENDIX C— EXCERPT FROM MOORE & ASSOCIATES REPORT REGARDING STC/LINK MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 South and East County Areas ...... 10 Figure 2.2 Sacramento County SRTP – Detail of Study Area ...... 11 Figure 2.3 General Plan Map 2030 ...... 17 Figure 2.4 Map of Recent and Planned Developments ...... 19 Figure 2.5 Map of Eastview Specific Plan Area ...... 21 Figure 3.1 Holiday Schedule ...... 24 Figure 3.2 Trips Per Year, FY 2011/12 to FY 2015/16 ...... 25 Figure 4.1 Frequency of Use ...... 28 Figure 4.2 Highway 99 Express Route Map ...... 29 Figure 4.3 Highway 99 Express Trip Purpose ...... 32 Figure 4.4 Longevity of Use ...... 33 Figure 5.1 Delta Route Map ...... 36 Figure 5.2 Frequency of Use ...... 37 Figure 5.3 Longevity of Use ...... 38 Figure 5.4 Delta Route Trip Purpose ...... 40 Figure 6.1 Commuter Express Route Map ...... 43 Figure 7.1 Regular and Extended Dial-a-Ride Service Area ...... 46 Figure 7.2 Frequency of Dial-a-Ride Service Use ...... 47 Figure 7.3 Reason for Dial-a-Ride Trip ...... 49 Figure 7.4 Dial-a-Ride Longevity of Use ...... 50 Figure 8.1 Amador Service Route Map ...... 58 Figure 8.2 Route 1/Sacramento Express Stops in Sacramento ...... 59 Figure 8.3 Holiday Schedule ...... 59 Figure 10.1 SCT/LINK Sticker on RT Bus Stop Sign at 16th & L Streets in Sacramento 79

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Estimated Growth Rates, Galt and Isleton, 2010-2016 ...... 12 Table 2.2 Study Area Population ...... 13 Table 2.3 Journey to Work Data ...... 15 Table 2.4 Recent and Planned Developments ...... 18 Table 3.1 Service Totals, FY 2011/12 to FY 2015/16 ...... 26 Table 4.1 Bus Stop Use ...... 30 Table 4.2 How Riders travel to/from the Bus Stop ...... 30 Table 4.3 Rider Demographics ...... 31 Table 4.4 Highway 99 Express Ridership ...... 32 Table 4.5 Rider Fare Category ...... 33 Table 4.6 Level of Agreement with Statements about Highway 99 Express Service .... 34 Table 5.1 Bus Stop Use ...... 37 Table 5.2 How riders travel to/from the bus stop ...... 38 Table 5.3 Rider Demographics ...... 39 Table 5.4 Delta Route Ridership Data ...... 40 Table 5.5 Level of Agreement with Statements about the Delta Route Service ...... 41 Table 6.1 Galt-Sacramento Commuter Express Ridership ...... 44 Table 7.1 Rider Fare Category ...... 47 Table 7.2 Rider Demographics ...... 48 Table 7.3 SCT/LINK Dial-a-Ride vs. Fixed Route Costs, FY 2014/15 ...... 50 Table 7.4 Dial-a-Ride Ridership, FY 2012/13 to FY 2015/16 ...... 50 Table 7.5 Dial-A-Ride Operating Cost Comparison, FY 2014/15 ...... 51 Table 7.6 SCT/LINK Dial-a-Ride vs. Fixed Route Costs, FY 2015/16 ...... 51 Table 7.7 Level of Agreement with Statements about the Delta Route Service ...... 52 Table 7.8 Total and Average No Shows, 2014-2016 ...... 52 Table 7.9 No Shows by Month, 2014-2016 ...... 53 Table 7.10 Saturday Usage, 2014-2016 ...... 53 Table 7.11 Saturday Early Morning and Evening Usage, January 2014 to June 2016 54 Table 8.1 Sacramento Express: Route Times ...... 60 Table 8.2 Current Fare Types and Prices ...... 60 Table 8.3 Route 1 Sacramento Express Ridership ...... 61 Table 9.1 South Sacramento County Annual Unmet Transit Needs Summary, ...... 65 Table 9.2 Summary of 2013 Triennial Performance Audit Recommendations ...... 66 Table 9.3 Summary of 2016 Triennial Performance Audit Recommendations ...... 67 Table 9.4 Current Contractual SCT/LINK Standards and Measures ...... 68 Table 9.5 Fare Survey ...... 72 Table 9.6 Potential Fare Phasing ...... 74 Table 10.1 How riders found out/learned about the service ...... 76 Table 11.1 Operating Cost Assumptions ...... 85 Table 11.2 Operating Expenses per Vehicle Revenue Hour ...... 85 Table 11.3 Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours ...... 85 Table 11.4 Operating Expenses by Route and Totals ...... 86 Table 11.5 Capital Expenses ...... 86 Table 11.6 SCT/LINK Fleet Replacement Schedule ...... 87 Table 11.7 Revenues Supporting Operating and Capital Expenses ...... 89 Table 11.8 Fare Revenue Assumptions ...... 89 Table 11.9 Revenues vs. Expenditures, FY 2016-2021 ...... 92

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) was conducted to assess current transit services supported by Sacramento County in the Southern and Eastern portions of the county, and to provide policy and financial direction to guide transit planning, service operation, capital investment, and policy decisions over the five-year plan period.

Service Area The south portions of the service area include the cities of Galt and Isleton, and the Delta and unincorporated areas of Sacramento County south of Elk Grove to the San Joaquin County boundary, including Herald, Walnut Grove, Ryde, and Courtland. The service area also includes unincorporated areas of Sacramento County east to the Amador County boundary, including Rancho Murieta and State Route 16 (Jackson Highway).

The areas have a combined population of about 33,000, with the largest community, the City of Galt, accounting for about 75% of the total. The largest proportion of the population is school-aged, at 20%. About 14% are over age 65, but proportions vary significantly between Galt, which tends to attract young families, and Rancho Murieta which has an older population (27% aged 65+ compared with 11% in Galt). Growth in both areas has averaged about 1% per year since 2010, so demand for transit services is not projected to grow quickly in absolute numbers given the smaller population base.

Existing Services The City of Galt and Sacramento County have a cooperative agreement to provide transit services in the City of Galt, south Sacramento County and the Delta. Sacramento County is the lead agency, and contracts with Storer Transit Systems to operate South Country Transit, known as SCT/LINK.

SCT/LINK offers numerous services:

• Express buses: weekday fixed route express service on Highway 99, and a commuter express between Galt and Sacramento • Rural service: weekday bus service connecting Delta communities with Isleton and Galt; and • Dial-a-Ride: Monday to Saturday general public, curb-to-curb service in the City of Galt, with special weekly services to Herald and south Sacramento medical facilities.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 2

The County of Sacramento also has an agreement with Amador Transit for shared service on Amador Transit’s Route 1 Sacramento Express. This weekday commute route has stops in Amador County, Rancho Murieta in the eastern portion of Sacramento County, and central Sacramento.

Total annual ridership has increased 41% over the past five years from 82,074 in FY2011/12 to over 115,000 in FY2015/16. Dial-a-Ride accounts for 41% of all trips, followed by Highway 99 Express (31.3%), Galt-Sacramento Commuter Express (19.3%), Delta Route (4.5%), and Amador Sacramento Express (4.1%). In terms of total vehicle revenue hours (VRH), Dial-a-Ride accounts for 47% of all VRH, followed by the Highway 99 Express (30%), Delta Route (10%), Galt-Sacramento Commuter Express (9%), and Amador Sacramento Express (5%).

Operating costs for South and East County service are estimated at about $2 million in FY 2016/17. Revenue sources in recent years have been more than sufficient to cover operations and capital costs, so the County is starting this SRTP with a surplus. Of sources of income to support South and East County services in FY 2016/17, Transportation Development Act funds of the County and City of Galt account for 73%, FTA 5311 Non-Urbanized Area Funds 16%, and 8% each from County/City State Transportation Assistance (STA) Funds and fare revenues.

Prior to the completion of this SRTP, a TDA Triennial Performance Audit was completed, along with further analysis by SACOG. The audit had not significant concerns or findings, and a comparison of SCT/LINK services with other regional systems found that costs are similar to other more rural systems and productivity is particularly high for the Dial-a-Ride service.

Surveys As part of developing the SRTP, on-board surveys were conducted in November 2015 with passengers on the Highway 99 Express, Delta Route, Dial-a-Ride service, and Amador Sacramento Commuter Express, but there were no East County residents who filled out a survey. In general, satisfaction was quite high with the SCT/LINK services. Surveys had recently been conducted that prompted expansion of the Galt-Sacramento Commuter Express, so additional surveys were not conducted on that service.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 3

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Service Plan The plan calls for maintaining all existing service routes and frequencies, with the following recommendations to improve services:

Highway 99 Service • Assess ways to improve on-time performance. • Consider usage of Methodist Hospital stop and whether to offer only on request.

Dial-a-Ride Service • Address increasing rate of no shows that can affect on-time performance. • Assess continuation of early morning and early evening service on Saturdays or potential shifting of resources to other services. • Assess adding a later run to the Medical Tripper on Thursdays and/or Fridays.

Additional Service Enhancements for Consideration • Pilot test of limited Saturday service on the Highway 99 Express between Galt and Sacramento. • Pilot test of limited Sunday Dial-a-Ride service in Galt.

Capital Improvements Plan The SRTP includes expenditures for capital needs, including:

• Fleet Replacements: 17 vehicles are slated to reach their useful life and require replacement during the timeframe of the SRTP. • Fueling Facility: A new shared fueling facility is planned by the City of Galt to fuel city and SCT/LINK vehicles. This will reduce SCT/LINK’s current lease payments.

Organization Plan • Expand County staffing by one position: One additional position is recommended to support transit planning, oversight, marketing, and monitoring. • Performance standards: Consider adopting performance standards/objectives that operationalize contract standards. • Fares: Assess potential fare increases and phasing, considering availability of funds, farebox recovery rates, and potential impacts on ridership. • Marketing: Develop three-year marketing plan, including targets and strategies for marketing the various services, plus a budget, timetable, and staffing plan.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 4

Financial Plan Operating costs by FY 2020-21, the final year of the plan, will total about $2.4 million, an increase of 15% from FY 2016-17. Capital expenses total $6.3 million over the five-year period, with most of the costs for replacement vehicles. Year-over-year revenues are projected to exceed operating and capital costs, generating a surplus. While a fare increase is not included in the plan, recommendations include assessment of phasing in a fare increase(s) and/or phasing out other fare media, following a period of experience with implementation of the Connect Card, the new fare medium that will be accepted by nine transit agencies across the region.

Implementation Plan

Fiscal Year 2016-17 • Update/extend current agreement with City of Galt for SCT/LINK cost-sharing prior to its expiration in April 2017 (anticipated in March 2017 for period through 2020). • Develop a monthly reporting format for use starting in FY 2017-18 • Continue with Connect Card implementation, conduct advance rider marketing and outreach as needed. • Begin addressing Dial-a-Ride no shows. Assess cancellation window, identify and begin outreach to regular no-shows. • Secure approval for additional staff position, begin recruitment process • Coordinate with City and Dry Creek Oaks developer to assess potential transportation services and demand. • Continue to monitor Saturday usage of early morning/evening windows on Dial-a- Ride. • Work with drivers to count Methodist Hospital stop use on all Highway 99 Express runs.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 5

Fiscal Year 2017-18 (continued) • Undertake additional Dial-a-Ride no-show education with parents/students; enforce no-show policies with non-student riders. • Based on continued monitoring, assess whether to continue offering Saturday early morning and/or early evening service hours on Dial-a-Ride. • Assess feasibility and demand for an additional morning and/or afternoon run on the Medical Tripper service on Thursdays and/or Fridays.

Fiscal Year 2018-19 • If first option was exercised, assess whether to exercise second option for one- year contract extension with Storer to begin on March 1, 2019. • Continue expanded marketing of services based on marketing plan. • Continue to implement bus stop improvement program. • Assess potential fare increase and phasing. • Monitor usage to assess conversion of riders to Connect Card for fare payment.

Fiscal Year 2019-20 • If both extension options were exercised with Storer, undertake procurement process for new SCT/LINK service contract, to begin March 1, 2020. • Determine feasibility of phasing out other types of fare media based on Connect Card usage. • Continue marketing of services based on marketing plan. • Continue to implement bus stop improvement program as needed.

Fiscal Year 2020-21 • If fare increase was not implemented earlier, update assessment of potential fare increase and phasing. • Update marketing and implementation plan. • Begin work on updating SRTP for period beginning FY 2021-22.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 6

Ongoing (continued) • Assess feasibility, demand, and resource availability for expanded services, including additional schedule(s) or third bus for Galt-Sacramento Commuter Express; pilot test of limited Sunday Dial-a-Ride service in Galt; limited Saturday service on the Highway 99 Express between Galt and Sacramento. • Monitor Delta College plans for any new satellite/high school programs in Galt for transit implications; engage in coordination efforts if discussions resume on the North County satellite campus. • Update agreements as needed with City of Galt and Amador Transit.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 7

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

What is a Short Range Transit Plan? A short range transit plan (SRTP) is a five- to seven-year planning document that provides policy and financial direction to guide future transit planning, service operation, capital investment, and policy decisions. SRTPs may also provide broad direction for a period of up to 10 years. SRTPs should be updated every three to five years to reflect progress towards implementation of recommendations from previous SRTPs and to adapt the financial plan to more accurately reflect fiscal realities.

SRTP Objectives and Focus Areas The primary objective of this SRTP is to update the previous SRTP adopted in 2012, which covered Fiscal Years (FY) 2008-2009 to 2012-2013, and was then updated with further amendments. This SRTP update will cover Fiscal Years 2016/17 to 2020/21 and will provide the policy and financial direction necessary for implementing service, operational, administrative, and capital recommendations that will help meet established standards, goals, and objectives, both at the local and regional levels.

At the regional level, this SRTP is a step towards implementing the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), a regional long-range planning document that provides a framework for transportation investments in El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba counties over a 20- to 30-year period. The 2016 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, adopted February 18, 2016, calls for a significant increase in transit service and ridership by 2036 to meet the growing transportation demand in the Sacramento region. The recommendations suggested in this SRTP represent another step in realizing the MTP vision.

Plan Organization This SRTP is broken down into nine chapters, which are described below.

CHAPTER 2—PLANNING CONTEXT: provides an overview of the South and East County study areas, including geographic locations, community and demographic characteristics, and recent and planned developments with implications for transit services.

CHAPTER 3—OVERVIEW OF SCT/LINK SERVICE: provides an overview of current South County and East County transit services.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 8

CHAPTER 4—HIGHWAY 99 EXPRESS SERVICE: provides detail on SCT/LINK’s Highway 99 service, including routing and usage, system performance and productivity statistics, passenger surveys, and recommendations.

CHAPTER 5— DELTA ROUTE: provides detail on SCT/LINK’s Delta Route service, including usage, system performance and productivity statistics, passenger surveys, and recommendations.

CHAPTER 6— GALT-SACRAMENTO COMMUTER EXPRESS: provides detail on SCT/LINK’s Commuter Express service including system performance and productivity statistics and recommendations.

CHAPTER 7— SCT/LINK DIAL-A-RIDE: provides detail on SCT/LINK’s Dial-a-Ride service, including regular and expanded services, system performance and productivity statistics and analysis, passenger surveys, and recommendations.

CHAPTER 8— EAST COUNTY SERVICE: provides detail on the shared Amador Transit/ Sacramento County commuter service, including system performance and productivity statistics and recommendations.

CHAPTER 9— GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND PRIOR RECOMMENDATIONS: provides information on transit-related goals and objectives, unmet transit needs findings, TDA triennial performance audit recommendations, organizational structure and staffing for SCT/LINK, and recommendations.

CHAPTER 10—MARKETING: provides an overview of current marketing efforts and recommendations for improving current and creating future marketing of South and East County services.

CHAPTER 11—FINANCIAL AND SERVICE PLAN: provides a fiscally-constrained financial plan, summarizes recommendations outlined in previous chapters, and provides timeline for implementation.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 9

CHAPTER 2 - PLANNING CONTEXT

A solid understanding of how the study area is changing is an important factor when considering options for improving transit service. This chapter provides an overview of the study area, including geographic location, community characteristics, demographic characteristics, and transportation access. Also included in this chapter is a summary of major planned or proposed developments with implications for transit service in the future.

Geographic Location The study area for this Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) comprises the south and east portions of Sacramento County, shown in Figure 2.1.

FIGURE 2.1 SOUTH AND EAST COUNTY AREAS

The south portions include the cities of Galt and Isleton, and the Delta and unincorporated areas of Sacramento County south of Elk Grove to the San Joaquin County boundary. The City of Galt is bisected by Highway 99, which runs north and south and connects the north area of Galt with the south or central area of Galt. The City of Isleton is located in the extreme southwest corner of Sacramento County, adjacent to the Sacramento River and north of State Route12. Its sister city is Rio Vista, located about five miles west across the Sacramento River in Solano County. Other "Delta" unincorporated communities in southwest Sacramento County include Walnut Grove, Ryde, and Courtland.

The study area also includes unincorporated areas of Sacramento County east to the Amador County boundary, including the Rancho Murieta Census Designated Place (CDP), and State Route 16 (SR 16 or Jackson Highway). Jackson Highway connects Amador County with Rancho Murieta and the Sacramento Urbanized Area.

Figure 2.2 provides a more detailed map.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 10

FIGURE 2.2 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SRTP – DETAIL OF STUDY AREA

Source: SACOG

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 11

Communities The majority of the population in South County, or about 25,500 people, live in the City of Galt. Although incorporated, the City of Isleton located on Andrus Island in the Delta has the smallest population in the study area, at about 850. Table 2.1 shows that estimated annual growth rates average around 1% per year in both cities.

TABLE 2.1 ESTIMATED GROWTH RATES, GALT AND ISLETON, 2010-2016

Dept. of 2010 Finance Total Est. % Average Census Estimate, Increase increase est. annual Population 1/1/2016 2010-16 2010-16 growth Galt 23,647 25,450 1,803 7.6% 1.3% Isleton 804 846 42 5.2% 0.9% Source: 2010 US Census, California Department of Finance

South County also includes the Delta communities of Walnut Grove, Locke, and Ryde. Walnut Grove is a Census Designated Place (CDP) with an estimated population of about 1,100. The other CDP in South County is the community of Herald to the northeast of Galt, with about 1,200 residents.

Rancho Murieta, the CDP in East County, is a 3,500-acre planned and gated golf community in the Sierra foothills 25 miles east of downtown Sacramento along Highway 16 (Jackson Highway). Begun in the 1970s, Rancho Murieta is made up of north, south, and village areas. Murieta Plaza across Jackson Highway serves as the community’s local shopping area. By 2014, the community had a population of about 5,800.

Demographics Table 2.2 provides an overview of the population of South County, as well as East County.

Homeownership rates in all of the communities exceed the Sacramento County rate of 54.2%. With home sales prices often lower than in Sacramento or nearby Elk Grove, Galt has tended to attract younger families with children. The median age for Galt residents is 32.1 years, considerably younger than the Sacramento County median age of 35.3 years, and about 30 percent of the population is under the age of 18, compared with 18.1 percent countywide.

As a result, households are generally larger, with a greater percentage of the population school-age children: over 1 in 5 in the City of Galt compared with less than 1 in 7 in Rancho Murieta. Those aged 65 years or older in Galt, where Dial-a-Ride is provided

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 12

six days a week, only account for 10.6 percent of the residents, compared to 12 percent countywide.

Galt and Isleton are less than 50% white, with large Hispanic/Latino populations – approximately 44% and 49% of the city’s residents, respectively –and the highest proportions of Spanish-speakers who speak English less than “very well” (12-18%). Rancho Murieta is 80% white and 8% Hispanic/Latino, with few limited English speakers. SCT/LINK provides information in Spanish to reach the largest group of limited English speakers in the service area.

The south area of Sacramento County generally has a different economic demographic than the Rancho Murieta area. A very affluent community, East County has an average income of $103,750, or 69% above the state average, with less than 4% of the population in poverty.

The highest household median incomes in South County are in Walnut Grove ($65,463) and Herald ($92,045), with poverty rates of less than 15%. Median household income in Galt is $59,375, still above the Sacramento County median of $55,842, with about 20% in poverty. Isleton in South County has the lowest household median income at $30,900, with nearly a quarter of residents in poverty.

While the South County area has a proportion of the population that fits into groups likely to depend on transit services – riders with disabilities, youth, seniors, low income residents, and households without access to a private vehicle – the actual numbers are still relatively small. Thus, this SRTP does not project significantly increased demand for transit services during the time period of the plan.

TABLE 2.2 STUDY AREA POPULATION

South County East County Walnut Grove Rancho Murieta City of Galt City of Isleton Herald CDP CDP CDP

General Characteristics

Total population 24,280 792 1,221 1,137 5,804 Female 13,169 54% 389 49% 568 47% 607 53% 2,896 50% Male 11,111 46% 403 51% 653 53% 530 47% 2,908 50%

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 13

Walnut Grove Rancho City of Galt City of Isleton Herald CDP CDP Murieta CDP

Age

Median age 32.1 46.8 50 46.5 51.7 Under 5 1,823 7.5% 28 3.5% 7 0.6% 68 6.0% 280 4.8% Age 5-17 5,389 22.2% 106 13.4% 201 16.5% 173 15.2% 810 14.0% Age 18-20 1,052 4.3% 33 4.2% 31 2.5% 74 6.5% 180 3.1% Age 21-64 13,441 55.4% 479 60.5% 765 62.7% 572 50.3% 2,988 51.5% Age 65 to 74 1,623 6.7% 90 11.4% 130 10.6% 152 13.4% 1,092 18.8% Age 75+ 952 2.8% 56 5.8% 87 6.6% 98 6.5% 454 5.8% Age 65+ 2,575 10.6% 146 18.4% 217 17.8% 250 22.0% 1,546 26.6% Male 1,083 42.1% 69 47.3% 116 53.5% 140 56.0% 905 58.5% Female 1,492 57.9% 77 52.7% 101 46.5% 110 44.0% 641 41.5%

Race/Ethnicity White alone 11,642 47.9% 327 41.3% 816 66.8% 703 61.8% 4,608 79.4% Hispanic/Latino 10,757 44.3% 391 49.4% 343 28.1% 339 29.8% 471 8.1% Black/African 633 2.6% 8 1.0% 55 4.5% 0 0.0% 111 1.9% American American Indian/ 67 0.3% 3 0.4% 7 0.6% 0 0.0% 171 2.9% Alaska Native Asian 764 3.1% 58 7.3% 0 0.0% 92 8.1% 220 3.8% Native Hawaiian/ 36 0.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 3 0.3% 14 0.2% Other Pacific Islander Some other race 62 0.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 50 0.9% Two or more races 319 1.3% 5 0.6% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 159 2.7%

Household Characteristics

Avg. household size 3.22 2.43* 3.16* 2.62* 2.44 Total housing units 7,776 379 381 579 2,435

% Homeowners 70.6% 56.2% 92% 77.8% 91.1%

% Foreign Born 18.5% 28.7% 1% 19.3% 7% Speak English less than 2,989 12.3% 141 17.8% 36 2.9% 88 7.7% 15 0.3% "very well" (Spanish)

Educational Attainment High school graduate 80.8% 73.7% 87.2% 87.5% 97.1% Bachelor's degree or 15.9% 6.0% 17.1% 26.6% 47.2% higher, age 25+

Income Median hh income $59,375 $30,900 $92,045 $65,463 $103,750 % Persons in poverty 20.8% 23.6% 14.5% 12.7% 3.8%

Source: American Community Survey 5-year estimates, 2014, except * where average household size from 2010 US Census

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 14

Journey to Work Over 4 in 10 (43%) of the Rancho Murieta working population are employed in the areas of public administration, health care, education and social services in Sacramento and the surrounding area. Almost a third (30.7%) of all workers are employed by government. South County residents also still largely commute, south to Lodi and Stockton or north to Elk Grove, Sacramento or beyond, due to limited employers in the area outside of agriculture and smaller businesses.

Table 2.3 provides commute mode data for the study areas in South and East Counties. The majority of commute trips are made by driving alone, with the highest proportion of solo drivers in Galt and Rancho Murieta. Carpooling is the next most common mode in Herald, Galt, and Isleton. Walking and working at home are the next most significant modes. Public transportation represents a very small share of commute modes. It should, however, be noted that these are estimates and the margins of error are high for these data, given the small geographies.

Average travel time is the highest for workers residing in Rancho Murieta, but all areas exceed the county mean of 25.1 minutes.

Table 2.3 Journey to Work Data

South County East County Rancho City of City of Herald Walnut Murieta Galt Isleton CDP Grove CDP CDP Workers 16 years and over 9,503 266 555 437 2,334 % of population 39% 34% 45% 38% 40% Mean travel time to work (minutes) 29.3 29.2 38.6 27.6 41

Commute Mode Car, truck, or van -- drove alone 81% 76% 71% 78% 85% Car, truck, or van -- carpooled 13% 9% 17% 4% 6% Public transportation (excluding taxi) 0.5% 0% 0% 2.5% 1.3% Walked 1.9% 5.6% 1.4% 7.6% 0% Other means 0.6% 1.1% 0% 2.7% 0.7% Worked at home 2.7% 8.3% 11.2% 5.7% 6.8% Source: Selected Economic Characteristics, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 15

Other Transportation Services

School Transportation Rancho Murieta students attend schools in the Elk Grove school district, and school bus transportation is provided.

The Galt Joint Union High School District provides school bus transportation for the high schools, and also for the Galt Elementary School District’s elementary and middle schools. Bus services include students from outlying communities, including Thornton, Herald, Acampo, and Wilton. High school students within a two-mile radius of their high school of residence are not eligible for school transportation. Home-to-school transportation costs parents $200/year, with a reduction for low-income students.

Bus transportation services are not available for elementary and middle school students residing within the city limits of Galt AND in locations with a safe walking path from home to school. However, morning bus transportation is available for McCaffrey Middle School students living within city limits on the west side of Galt. After school bus routes support both the regular after school dismissal time and additional routes support transportation services for students attending the Bright Future Learning Center (BFLC) After School Clubs and the After School Education & Safety (ASES) Program.

Contact information for SCT/LINK is included in some parent letters from the schools.

Franchise Tax Board Shuttle In partnership with the Franchise Tax Board, the Sacramento County Department of Human Assistance (DHA), provides transportation for welfare to work recipients between the Franchise Tax Board office in Sacramento and low to moderate income neighborhoods in South Sacramento. The Department of Human Assistance works with the Franchise Tax Board to hire recipients of CalWORKS, a state welfare program that assists families in need. The County oversees an agreement with the contractor, MV Transportation, to offer two daily trips before and after Regional Transit service for recipients in the CalWORKS program at no fare. Riders are picked up at designated locations, and the program is funded by CalWORKS.

Growth and Development As shown in the City of Galt’s 2030 General Plan map (Figure 2.3), the city anticipates a land use pattern primarily consisting of low to medium density single family residential development, and pockets of concentrated commercial development.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 16

Figure 2.3 General Plan Map 2030

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 17

Planned Developments A number of developments have been completed or are in the planning stages in Galt. Table 2.4 lists these developments; numbers in the first column of the table correspond to the numbered locations on the map in Figure 2.4.,

Table 2.4 Recent and Planned Developments # Recently Completed Walmart Supercenter 133,000 sf Completed in 2014 4 River Oaks, Unit 3 Phase 1 – 72 Lots Completed – 2015 5 Creekside 2 38 SFD Completed – 2015

Underway/Planned 1 Fairway Oaks 100 SFD Has approved tentative map 2 Galt Village Shopping 125,000 sf shopping center, Anchored by Raley's Center 1 vacant pad 3 Emerald Park #22 25 detached SFD Under construction 4 River Oaks, Unit 3 Phase 2 – 128 Lots Under construction Phase 3 – 70 Lots Has approved plan, map, permit 5 Creekside 3 & 4 17 SFD & 67 SFD Under construction 6 Morali Estates 50 SFD Has approved tentative map 7 Carillon Corners Retail 77,594 sf shopping center, Anchored by Rite-Aid, Tractor Center vacant space & pads available Supply, Dollar Tree 8 Dry Creek Oaks 201 Senior SFD, high density Approved project SR, assisted living 9 Cedar Flats Estates 120 SFD Approved project 10 Eastview Liberty Ranch Up to 1,735 units Approved project Source: City of Galt

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 18

Figure 2.4 Map of Recent and Planned Developments

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 19

Source: City of Galt Most of the planned new developments in Galt are single family homes or small enough that they will likely not foster significant demand for transit services. However, three developments deserve highlighting in this SRTP.

Dry Creek Oaks In 2011, Galt Place, 80 affordable apartments restricted to those age 55+, opened at 4th and D Streets in downtown Galt. A new development, Dry Creek Oaks, has been approved by the City for 202 additional age-restricted units, to be located east of Hwy 99, south of Boessow Road, and north of Dry Creek. The development will include 4,500-11,200 square foot single family homes, multifamily and assisted living units, with an overall density of 5 units per gross acre. This is potentially an additional area for SCT/LINK Dial-a-Ride services.

Eastview Liberty Ranch The Eastview Specific Plan is a May 2016 plan for 500 acres of land east of Galt, within the City’s sphere of influence (see Figure 2.5). The area includes Liberty Ranch, a proposed master-planned community on 339 acres bounded by Twin Cities Road to the north, Cherokee Lane to the east, the Southern Pacific Railroad line to the south, and Marengo Road to the west. The development anticipates nearly 1,400 predominantly single-family homes, about 56 acres of parks, open space and landscaped areas, an elementary school, and space for commercial. The remaining acreage in the specific plan area includes primarily rural residential parcels that, along with Estrellita and Liberty Ranch High Schools, could also eventually be annexed. Although full build-out will likely happen well beyond the timeframe of this plan, as these areas are annexed, they would become part of the SCT/LINK service area, so advance planning will be important.

Delta College In November 2015, San Joaquin Delta College Trustees voted to pursue building a new North County campus on property it owns in Galt west of Highway 99 at Liberty Road. However, in December 2016, Delta College’s President/Superintendent recommended indefinitely postponing a decision on the satellite campus and redirecting funds to the existing Manteca and Stockton campuses. The Superintendent also recommended establishing satellite classes at Estrellita High School, located in the Eastview Specific Plan area.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 20

Figure 2.5 Map of Eastview Specific Plan Area

Source: City of Galt

Planning Recommendations The County and City should coordinate on planning for transit services related to the developments described above.

Dry Creek Oaks: There is often a history of age-restricted developments emphasizing “active” seniors and therefore not providing transportation services. Then aging residents begin requesting public transportation if they become infirm. Some transit agencies end up expanding transit or Dial-a-Ride to these communities after the fact, while others end up relying on volunteer drivers from the community when transportation is unavailable. County and City staff should plan more deliberately. Staff should discuss the development agreement with the developer of Dry Creek Oaks, and assess whether:

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 21

• There is any plan for transportation to be provided within/outside the community, including for the multifamily and assisted living portions, and if there is not, what information will be provided to prospective residents concerning future transportation availability. • The assisted living facility will provide transportation services, and if so, how to structure opportunities to share that service with other residents. • There are or should be provisions to support transit services/demand-response transit with funds and access to support a future aging community.

Eastview/Liberty Ranch: The Galt-Sacramento Commuter Express and Highway 99 Express both already make stops at the Twin Cities Road park-and-ride lot. The lot currently has 90 parking spaces and 4 bike storage units.

As the Eastview area is planned further, County and City staff should work together to assess whether/when to expand the SCT/LINK service area to incorporate the area; potential future demand for demand-response and fixed route transit services including existing express services; whether park-and-ride needs may expand along with build- out; and whether the developers of Liberty Ranch should be responsible for any transit- related improvements.

Additionally, City and County staff should assess Delta College’s plans for satellite courses at the Estrellita High School campus, adjacent to Liberty Ranch High School, for potential increased transit demand, as well as monitor any other plans for satellite courses, programs or facilities in Galt over time.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 22

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 23

CHAPTER 3 - OVERVIEW OF SCT/LINK SERVICE

Existing Service The City of Galt and Sacramento County have a cooperative agreement to provide transit services in the City of Galt, south Sacramento County and the Delta. Sacramento County is the lead agency, and contracts for transit operations with Storer Transit Systems.

SCT/LINK offers numerous services: a fixed route express bus service on Highway 99; a commuter express between Galt and Sacramento; a bus route connecting Delta communities with Isleton and Galt; and a Dial-A-Ride service in the City of Galt as well as special weekly services to Herald and south Sacramento medical facilities. These routes, described in more detail in the following chapters, operate mostly Monday to Friday and do not run on the holidays shown in Figure 3.1. Figure 3.1 Holiday Schedule Holidays – Not in Operation New Year’s Day Veteran’s Day Martin Luther King Jr. Day Thanksgiving Day President’s Day The day after Thanksgiving Memorial Day Christmas Eve Independence Day Christmas Day Labor Day Source: SCT/LINK

The County of Sacramento also has an agreement with Amador Transit for shared service on Amador Transit’s Route 1 Sacramento Express. This weekday route has stops in Amador County, Rancho Murieta in the eastern portion of Sacramento County, and central Sacramento. This East County service is described in more detail in Chapter 8.

Collectively, the number of annual passenger trips on routes has increased over the past five years from 82,074 in FY2011/12 to over 115,000 in FY2015/16 as shown in Figure 3.2. The addition of the Commuter Express with service between Galt and Sacramento has added over 22,000 annual passenger trips.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 24

Figure 3.2 Trips Per Year, FY 2011/12 to FY 2015/16

Source: FY 2013 & 2016 TDA Triennial Performance Audits, Storer FY 2015/16 Unaudited Figures

Table 3.1 summarizes total passengers, vehicle hours and miles and operating costs for the various services. More detailed analysis of performance and costs can be found in the following chapters.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 25

Table 3.1 Service Totals, FY 2011/12 to FY 2015/16 DIAL-A-RIDE FY 11/12 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 Total Passengers 34,915 48,307 47,808 46,791 47,281 Total Vehicle Service Hours 8,703 10,299 10,059 10,381 10,853 (VSH) Total Vehicle Service Miles 103,184 123,921 119,162 121,463 136,613 (VSM) Total Operating Cost $716,402 $873,513 $859,866 $953,122 $849,696 SCT/LINK TOTAL BUS ROUTE FY 11/12 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 Total Passengers 40,400 49,290 55,661 58,796 63,735 Total Vehicle Service Hours 11,153 10,646 10,350 10,350 11,098 (VSH) Total Vehicle Service Miles 345,047 324,052 320,430 323,183 341,035 (VSM) Total Operating Cost $831,775 $909,856 $867,486 $927,128 $885,607 EAST COUNTY FY 11/12 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 Total Passengers 6,759 6,871 7,460 5,828 4,748 Total Vehicle Service Hours 1,076 1,076 1,081 1,081 1,085 (VSH) Total Vehicle Service Miles 26,784 26,784 26,892 26,892 27,000 (VSM) Total Operating Cost $103,854 $117,696 $122,689 $119,752 $95,932 TOTAL SOUTH & EAST COUNTY FY 11/12 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 Total Passengers 82,074 104,468 110,929 111,415 115,764 Total Vehicle Service Hours 20,932 22,022 21,490 21,812 23,036 (VSH) Total Vehicle Service Miles 475,015 474,757 466,484 471,538 504,648 (VSM) Total Operating Cost $1,716,915 $1,901,064 $1,850,041 $2,000,002 $1,828,155 Fare Revenue (systemwide – $145,556 $208,702 $219,207 $227,497 $254,773 inc. DAR)

Source: FY 2013 & 2016 TDA Triennial Performance Audits, Storer FY 2015/16 Unaudited Figures

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 26

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 27

CHAPTER 4 - HIGHWAY 99 EXPRESS

The Highway 99 Express is an intercity, fixed route bus service that connects Galt south to Lodi, and north to Elk Grove and Sacramento. The route originally ended in Sacramento at the Florin Mall Transit Center. In anticipation of Sacramento Regional Transit’s light rail extension to Cosumnes River College (CRC), the County and SACOG undertook a route analysis and survey. Based on results, in May 2013 the route was modified to serve the college and nearby medical facilities, in place of Florin Mall (see Figure 4.2 on the next page). The route now makes stops at the following locations:

• Lodi – Transit Center • Galt – City Hall • Elk Grove – Shell Station on Elk Grove Blvd. (with 24-hour advance request) • Sacramento – CRC, Kaiser South and Methodist Hospital on Bruceville Road.

The Highway 99 Express runs Monday through Friday except holidays. The 90 surveys received from passengers showed the route is used regularly, with 31% of riders using it daily.

Figure 4.1 Frequency of Use

How often do you typically ride this route?

35% 31% 22%

6% 7%

5 days per week 3 - 4 days per 1 - 2 days per 1 - 3 days per Less than once a week week month month Source: On-Board Survey, November 2015

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 28

Figure 4.2 Highway 99 Express Route Map

Source: SCT/LINK

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 29

Transfers Transfers may be made at Galt City Hall to SCT/LINK’s Delta Route, to San Joaquin Regional Transit District and Grapeline at the Lodi Transit Center, to e-tran at Elk Grove Shell Station, and to Sacramento Regional Transit at Cosumnes River College (CRC).

Galt City Hall, CRC, and the Lodi Transit Center are the most used stops, while during the survey, no riders used the Methodist Hospital stop.

Table 4.1 Bus Stop Use Stop ON OFF Lodi Transit Center 20% 23% Galt City Hall 65% 19% Elk Grove Shell Station 1% 4% Cosumnes River College/Light Rail 13% 52% South Sacramento – Kaiser Hospital 1% 2% South Sacramento – Methodist Hospital 0% 0% Source: On-Board Survey, November 2015

Many riders indicate they do use transfers to reach the 99 Express stop and/or their final destination, with most transferring to/from a bus route rather than light rail.

Table 4.2 How Riders travel to/from the Bus Stop

HOW TRAVEL HOW TRAVEL FROM HOME TO TO STOP DESTINATION Walk/Roll 33% 45% Get dropped off at the bus stop 32% - Bus Transfer 17% 35% Light Rail Transfer 2% 8% Bike to the stop 6% 6% Drive alone and park 6% - Share Ride 4% 4% Other 1% 2% Source: On-Board Survey, November 2015

Reports showed bike usage on buses increasing from 3,481 in FY 2013/14 to 3,508 in FY 2014/15.

Rider Demographics As shown in Table 4.3, the demographics of riders are consistent with groups more likely to use transit: women, those of student age, persons of color, individuals without a

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 30

driver’s license or limited access to a vehicle, and those from larger and lower income households. Table 4.3 Rider Demographics Gender Female 57% Male 43% Age Under 18 10% 18-24 48% 25-34 17% 35-44 8% 45-54 6% 55-64 7% 65+ 4% Race/Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino 54% White 29% Black/African American 3% Asian 1% Other 13% Has Driver's License Yes 34% No 66% Typically has access to a car Always 19% Sometimes 53% Never 29% Household Size 1 9% 2 14% 3 22% 4 22% 5 or more 34% Annual Household Income Less than $15,000 44% $15,000 to $24,999 22% $25,000 to $34,999 14% $35,000 to $44,999 4% $45,000 to $54,999 4% $55,000 to 64,999 6% $65,000 or more 6%

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 31

Source: On-Board Survey, November 2015 Performance Performance information for the Highway 99 Express and other services is based on National Transit Database (NTD) reports through FY 2014-15, and monthly reports compiled by Storer for FY 2015/16. As shown in Table 4.4, ridership on the Highway 99 Express grew by 18% between FY 2012/13 and FY 2015/16. Table 4.4 Highway 99 Express Ridership Increase FY FY FY FY FY 12/13- HWY 99 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 FY 15/16 Passengers 30,665 36,871 37,325 36,192 18.0% Vehicle Revenue Hours 6,723 6,750 6,750 6,804 1.2% Passengers per VRH 4.6 5.5 5.5 5.3 16.6% Fare Recovery Ratio 8.8% 10.0% 10.0% 11.0%

Many of the additional riders are students attending Cosumnes River College (CRC). This pattern can be discerned by the larger number of northbound boardings in the mid- morning – both at the Lodi Transfer Center and at Galt City Hall – and responses from the on-board survey. As shown in Figure 4.3, 44% of those using the Highway 99 Express were going to CRC, and another 18% to other schools and colleges.

Figure 4.3 Highway 99 Express Trip Purpose

Trip Purpose 44%

21% 18%

5% 7% 2% 3%

Source: On-Board Survey, November 2015

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 32

This is consistent with the preponderance of student fares used by riders, shown in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5 Rider Fare Category Disabled/ Medicare Adult Student Senior Card Holder 28% 59% 5% 8% Source: On-Board Survey, November 2015

Between FY 2014/15 and 2015/16, trips decreased slightly (-3%). It is unknown whether the opening of the CRC light rail station in August 2015 affected ridership by providing a large park-and-ride lot at the college. However, ridership on the Highway 99 Express still significantly exceeds that in FY 2012/13, and the fare recovery ratio for the route has increased, from 8.8% in FY 2012/13 to 11% in FY 2015/16. The service has attracted new riders, with a third reportedly having used the service less than 6 months.

Figure 4.4 Longevity of Use

How long have you been using this route?

28% 27% 25%

13%

More than 1-2 years Less than Less than Less than 2 years a year 6 months 1 month

Source: On-Board Survey, November 2015

Rider Satisfaction Per the surveys, riders are quite satisfied with the Highway 99 Express. Table 4.6 shows the proportion of riders agreeing with statements about the service, with only 1-2% expressing dissatisfaction. Of the 18 riders who provided comments, 11 specifically praised the service and the drivers.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 33

Table 4.6 Level of Agreement with Statements about Highway 99 Express Service

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree Buses are clean and in 78% 15% 5% 2% good condition Drivers are safe and 87% 7% 4% 2% courteous Bus stops are safe and 82% 12% 4% 2% accessible Service is on-time and 67% 26% 4% 1% 2% reliable Trip time is 69% 18% 10% 2% 1% comparable with driving Service is a good value 89% 7% 2% 2% Source: On-Board Survey, November 2015

Comments included a request for Saturday service. The previous SRTP recommended expanding the Highway 99 Express to Saturdays with five runs on a two-hour turnaround using one bus. This recommendation was based on the fact that many people use the service for non-work trips. However, rider surveys showed 21% using the Highway 99 service for work, another 44% to reach CRC which does not offer many courses on Saturdays, and an additional 18% to reach other schools and colleges. Staff should analyze further whether enough demand exists to pilot a limited service on Saturdays. Since only 1 in 5 survey respondents boarded in Lodi on weekdays, a pilot service might be limited to the Galt to Kaiser/Methodist portion of the route, as Kaiser South has Saturday hours for laboratory, radiology, optometry, and other services, and Methodist Hospital offers visiting hours.

Recommendations Although satisfaction is still high, ratings were somewhat lower for on-time service for the Highway 99 Express. Staff should assess whether there are improvements that could be made in this area to increase the effectiveness of the route.

Additionally, the survey did not include riders using the Methodist Hospital stop (see Table 4.1). Staff should monitor use of the stop, and if usage is low, consider whether to discontinue the stop or include it only upon advance request, similar to the Elk Grove stop. Staff should also assess the potential for a pilot test of limited Highway 99 Saturday service.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 34

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 35

CHAPTER 5 - DELTA ROUTE

The Delta route provides bus service in southern Sacramento County between Isleton and Galt, with stops in Ryde, Walnut Grove, and Locke (see Figure 5.1). For riders unable to catch the bus at a designated stop, the Delta Route will deviate to Ryde, Courtland, Hood, and up to ¾ of a mile off the route in the Delta communities with an advance reservation.

Route changes made in November 2013 discontinued a section of the route that traveled directly between Isleton and Lodi. This change improved route safety and allowed two additional daily runs between Isleton and Galt, with passengers able to transfer to the Highway 99 Express to reach Lodi. A bus stop was also added serving the Raley’s and Walmart shopping centers in Galt.

Figure 5.1 Delta Route Map

Source: SCT/LINK

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 36

The Delta Route runs every 2-3 hours, Monday through Friday, from 6:20 a.m. to 6:15 p.m. As shown in Figure 5.2, 87% of riders reported using it every week.

Figure 5.2 Frequency of Use

How often do you typically ride this route? 38%

31%

19%

13%

5 days per week 3 - 4 days per 1 - 2 days per 1 - 3 days per Less than once a week week month month Source: On-Board Survey, November 2015

Transfers The highest number of boardings occur in Galt and Isleton, with Walnut Grove next. The pattern is generally eastward travel in the morning and westward (return trips) in the afternoon, although each direction of each run is used throughout the day. Over 92% of riders reported using the service for round trips.

Table 5.1 Bus Stop Use Stop ON OFF Isleton City Hall 47% Ryde Post Office 12% Walnut Grove Paul Barnes Park 24% 13% Galt City Hall 12% 60% Other location thru route deviation request 6% 27% Source: On-Board Survey, November 2015

The stop at Galt City Hall offers connecting service via the Highway 99 Express to Elk Grove, Sacramento and Lodi, at an additional cost. Transfers to Rio Vista’s Delta Breeze Transit Service may be made from Isleton City Hall. As shown in Table 5.2,

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 37

about 20% of riders indicated they transfer to the Highway 99 Express from the Delta Route.

Table 5.2 How riders travel to/from the bus stop

HOW TRAVEL HOW TRAVEL FROM HOME TO TO STOP DESTINATION Walk/Roll 68% 75% Get dropped off at the bus stop 11% - Bus Transfer 3% 20% Bike to the stop 5% 5% Source: On-Board Survey, November 2015

Rider Overview A majority of the riders have been using the Delta Route over two years, while 19% reported using the service for less than a year.

Figure 5.3 Longevity of Use

How long have you been using this route? 56%

25%

13% 6%

More than 2 years 1-2 years Less than a year Less than 6 months

Source: On-Board Survey, November 2015

Compared with the Highway 99 Express, the majority of Delta Route riders (Table 5.3) are older, Hispanic/Latino, do not have a driver’s license or access to a car, and come from households with annual income of less than $15,000 per year.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 38

Table 5.3 Rider Demographics Gender Female 50% Male 50% Age Under 25 0% 25-34 9% 35-44 18% 45-54 27% 55-64 0% 65+ 45% Race/Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino 67% White 33% Has Driver's License Yes 44% No 56% Typically has access to a car Always 0% Sometimes 44% Never 56% Household Size 1 20% 2 10% 3 to 4 30% 5 or more 40% Annual Household Income Less than $15,000 71% $15,000 to $24,999 29% Source: On-Board Survey, November 2015

Performance Despite an initial dip when route changes were made, ridership has actually increased on the Delta Route: 25% overall between FY 2012/13 and 2015/16, and 42% since FY 2013/14.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 39

Table 5.4 Delta Route Ridership Data Increase FY FY FY FY FY 12/13- 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 FY 15/16 Passengers 4,173 3,652 4,222 5,197 25% Vehicle Revenue Hours 2,595 2,288 2,288 2,306 -11% Passengers per VRH 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.3 40% Fare Ratio 2.9% 2.9% 3.0% 4.0%

In 2016, the fare recovery ratio for the Delta Route improved to 4%, which falls in the range for such a rural route. In June 2013, the SACOG Board of Directors approved a resolution to enable a composite fare ratio for Sacramento County to meet state farebox recovery requirements. As a result, SCT/LINK is not subject to the 10% farebox recovery requirement for non-urbanized areas.

However, population in the rural Delta is too low and trip length too long for the service to be considered productive. Instead, the Delta Route is a “coverage” route, acting as a critical transportation lifeline for a number of riders who depend on the service. Per the rider survey (Figure 5.4), over a quarter of riders use the route to reach work, and about one in five to reach the Tuesday/Wednesday Galt Flea Market, which includes fresh produce sales. Other key uses are to reach Walmart, health care, and for social/recreation purposes.

Figure 5.4 Delta Route Trip Purpose

28% 22% 17% 11% 11% 6% 6%

Source: On-Board Survey, November 2015

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 40

Rider Satisfaction Per the surveys, riders are generally very satisfied with the Delta Route. Table 5.5 shows the proportion of riders agreeing with statements about the service. However, the small sample size may not be completely representative of the ridership. While trip time compared with driving may not be easily remedied, reliability may be an area to assess to determine how on-time performance could be improved. The two riders who wrote comments – and who both use the route to help get to/from Sacramento – praised the service and specifically the drivers. Additionally, one noted that SCT/LINK’s informal practice of holding the last Delta Route bus for transfers from the Highway 99 Express is extremely helpful, so riders are not left stranded in Galt.

Table 5.5 Level of Agreement with Statements about the Delta Route Service

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree Buses are clean and in 100% good condition Drivers are safe and 71% 29% courteous Bus stops are safe and 85% 8% 8% accessible Service is on-time and 71% 21% 7% reliable Trip time is comparable 69% 15% 8% 8% with driving Service is a good value 71% 29%

Source: On-Board Survey, November 2015

Service Recommendations Given the lifeline nature of the Delta Route service and the increasing ridership, no changes are recommended to the service in this SRTP. However, per best practices, data reports should be reviewed at least quarterly to monitor the ongoing performance of the route.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 41

CHAPTER 6 - GALT-SACRAMENTO COMMUTER EXPRESS

Effective April 30, 2012, SCT/LINK began an express commuter service connecting Galt to the urban core of Sacramento. Initially, the route used one bus to provide three round trips between Galt and Sacramento, travelling along Highway 99 with no stops in between. With the bus at capacity, two additional round trips using a second bus were added in October 2015, to offer a total of five trips between Galt and Sacramento each weekday: two early morning and two late afternoon trips, plus one midday trip.

Transfers Figure 6.1 on the following page shows the full Commuter Express route. Two stops are utilized within the City of Galt, one at Galt City Hall and another at the Caltrans Park- and-Ride lot at Twin Cities Rd in the northern half of Galt. In Sacramento, the Commuter Express shares bus stops with Regional Transit in downtown and midtown, including at 30th and R Streets, which allows connections to light rail, bus routes, and medical shuttles at the 30th and R St. light rail station.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 42

Figure 6.1 Commuter Express Route Map

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 43

Performance Since its inception, the Commuter Express has been successful, as shown in Table 6.1. Between FYs 2012/13 and 2014/15, ridership grew by 19%. With the addition of the second bus, ridership grew by another 30% from FY 2014/15 to 2015/16.

Table 6.1 Galt-Sacramento Commuter Express Ridership Increase FY FY FY FY FY 12/13- Commuter Express 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 FY 15/16 Passengers 14,452 15,138 17,249 22,346 55% Vehicle Revenue Hours 1,328 1,313 1,313 1,988 50% Passengers per VRH 10.9 11.5 13.1 11.2 3% Fare Ratio 48.6% 62.8% 73.0% 34.0%

The morning and afternoon runs are well used. The midday run is not as well used, but is necessary to provide a safety net for those who may need to return home earlier in the day. The midday run is also used by non-commuters seeking to access services in Sacramento. With the additional bus, the fare recovery ratio declined from prior years but is still at a high rate of 34%.

Commuter Express passengers were not included in the on-board survey, as surveys had been done recently to gauge demand for the second bus and expanded schedule.

Service Recommendations This SRTP does not anticipate expansion of the Galt-Sacramento Commuter Express within the timeframe of the plan. However, County and Storer staff should continue to assess demand, and if buses near capacity again, assess the resources and demand for adding runs and/or a third bus after further analysis and surveying.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 44

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 45

CHAPTER 7 - SCT/LINK DIAL-A-RIDE

Prior to December 2008, SCT/LINK had four fixed bus routes in Galt. Due to poor ridership, SCT/LINK replaced the fixed route service with local demand-response service serving the City of Galt and Herald. This curb-to-curb Dial-A-Ride service is open to the general public. The service operates Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and on Saturdays from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Passengers may schedule rides up to 14 days in advance by calling the SCT/LINK office, open from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday to Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Same-day reservations are accepted if space permits.

On Tuesdays, SCT/LINK offers an expanded Dial-a-Ride service area (Figure 7.1) to provide lifeline service between Twin Cities Road, the Clay Station area of Herald, and the City of Galt.

Figure 7.1 Regular and Extended Dial-a-Ride Service Area

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 46

On Thursdays and Fridays, SCT/LINK provides medical trips for seniors and disabled passengers as part of the Dial-A-Ride service. The Medical Tripper transports riders to the Kaiser Promenade Medical Office in Elk Grove, Kaiser Permanente South Sacramento, and UC Davis Medical Center offices on Stockton Boulevard and Y Street in Sacramento. The service requires a 24-hour advance reservation. Passenger pickup begins at 8:30 a.m. and a single return trip occurs around 1:00 p.m. The fare is $2.50 each way.

Rider Overview As shown in Figure 7.2, 81% of riders reported using the service each week, with 9% using it six days a week.

Figure 7.2 Frequency of Dial-a-Ride Service Use

How often do you typically ride this route?

34%

19% 16% 16%

6 days per week 5 days per week 3 - 4 days per 1 - 2 days per 1 - 3 days per week week month

Source: On-Board Survey, November 2015

The demographics of surveyed riders (Table 7.2 on the next page) is more diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, access to a car, and income than that of the Delta Route but less than the Highway 99 Express. However, the survey is not reflective of the student population who use the Dial-a-Ride service, since none of the respondents was under age 18 and surveyed riders did not indicate using student fares, as shown in Table 7.1. This is likely because many student riders are quite young and their parents were not present to help fill out the survey. Table 7.1 Rider Fare Category Disabled/ Medicare Adult Student Senior Card Holder 53% 0% 19% 19% Source: On-Board Survey, November 2015

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 47

Table 7.2 Rider Demographics Gender Female 72% Male 28% Age Under 18 0% 18-24 30% 25-34 21% 35-44 9% 45-54 9% 55-64 9% 65+ 21% Race/Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino 53% White 31% Black/African American 6% Asian 6% Other 3% Has Driver's License Yes 36% No 64% Typically has access to a car Always 18% Sometimes 61% Never 21% Household Size 1 24% 2 9% 3 15% 4 24% 5 or more 27% Annual Household Income Less than $15,000 52% $15,000 to $24,999 24% $25,000 to $34,999 16% $35,000 to $44,999 8%

Figure 7.3 shows the variation of trip purpose for Dial-a-Ride users. Of surveyed riders, nearly 30% use the service for work, and 21% for school as adults. (Consistent with the lack of survey completion by younger students, all indicating school as a reason for their trip were 18 or older.) Shopping (27%) and health care appointments (10%) are the bulk of the remaining uses.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 48

Figure 7.3 Reason for Dial-a-Ride Trip

Trip Purpose 29%

21% 17%

10% 7% 7% 5% 5%

Source: On-Board Survey, November 2015

Storer reports add information on student usage. Those paying student rates comprised 60% of riders in FY 2013/14 and 52% in FY 2014/15.

Performance Nearly half of all SCT/LINK passenger trips are on the Dial-a-Ride service. Unlike fixed routes, productivity for demand response service is constrained not by the vehicle size but by the time needed and available for scheduling pick-ups and drop-offs. Productivity of 4-5 passengers per hour is considered good and indicates the operator is effective in grouping trips. As shown in Table 7.3, Dial-a-Ride ridership has fluctuated somewhat in recent years but still provides over four rides per vehicle revenue hour.

While 60% of riders reported using Dial-a-Ride for more than a year, 1 in 5 had been using it for less than six months, so new people are joining the pool of riders.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 49

Figure 7.4 Dial-a-Ride Longevity of Use

How long have you been using this route?

40%

20% 20% 17%

More than 2 1-2 years Less than a Less than 6 Less than 1 years year months month

Source: On-Board Survey, November 2015

As shown in Table 7.3, Dial-a-Ride is often more expensive to provide than fixed route bus services.

Table 7.3 SCT/LINK Dial-a-Ride vs. Fixed Route Costs, FY 2014/15 Operating Cost/ Operating Cost/Vehicle Passenger Revenue Hour Dial-a-Ride Fixed Route Dial-a-Ride Fixed Route $20.37 $15.77 $91.81 $89.58 Source: 2016 TDA Triennial Performance Audit

Given the costs, slower rates of growth in demand are generally considered a net positive for demand-response services. Most recently, between FY 2014/15 and 2015/16, Dial-a-Ride ridership increased by 1%, but overall has decreased 2% since FY 2012/13.

Table 7.4 Dial-a-Ride Ridership, FY 2012/13 to FY 2015/16 Increase FY FY FY FY FY 12/13- Dial-a-Ride 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 FY 15/16 Passengers 48,307 47,808 46,791 47,281 -2% Vehicle Revenue Hours 10,300 10,059 10,381 10,853 5% Rides per Hour 4.7 4.8 4.5 4.4 -7% Fare Ratio 8.9% 9.3% 8.0% 9.3% Source: 2016 TDA Triennial Performance Audit & SCT/Link unaudited data

SACOG compiled a cost comparison using FY 2014/15 audited figures with other transit agencies in the region that operate Dial-a-Ride service in a more rural geography. The comparison showed that while cost per vehicle revenue hour was on the higher side,

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 50

SCT/LINK’s Dial-a-Ride service on a per passenger basis is the least expensive because of its high productivity.

Table 7.5 Dial-A-Ride Operating Cost Comparison, FY 2014/15

SCT/Link Placer Dial-A-Ride Yolobus Special Yuba-Sutter Transit

Operating cost/ $20.37 $26.67 $53.36 $24.49 passenger Operating cost/ $91.81 $67.89 $105.02 $75.79 vehicle revenue hr Source: 2016 TDA Triennial Performance Audit

Per unaudited reports, SCT/LINK costs decreased in FY 2015/16. This brought Dial-a- Ride and Fixed Route to similar rates per revenue hour, but fixed route is still less expensive per passenger.

Table 7.6 SCT/LINK Dial-a-Ride vs. Fixed Route Costs, FY 2015/16 Operating Cost/ Operating Cost/Vehicle Passenger Revenue Hour Dial-a-Ride Fixed Route Dial-a-Ride Fixed Route $17.97 $13.90 $78.29 $79.80 Source: SCT/Link FY 2015/16 unaudited data

For 2016 the fare recovery ratio was 9.3% (Table 7.3). This is not unusual for a Dial-a- Ride service serving a more rural area. Because of the more rural geography, SCT/LINK relies on a blended fare ratio for Sacramento County to meet the requirements of the Transportation Development Act.

Rider Satisfaction Per surveys received from 36 passengers, riders are also generally very satisfied with the Dial-a-Ride service, as shown in Table 7.7. Seven of the 13 riders who wrote specific comments said they really appreciate the service.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 51

Table 7.7 Level of Agreement with Statements about the Delta Route Service

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Neutral Dial-a-Ride Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Buses are clean and in good 85% 6% 3% 6% 0% condition Drivers are safe and 88% 6% 3% 3% 0% courteous Scheduling a ride is easy 88% 4% 8% 0% 0% Scheduling staff are 92% 4% 4% 0% 0% courteous Bus stops are safe and 75% 13% 13% 0% 0% accessible Service is on-time and 73% 12% 12% 3% 0% reliable Trip time is comparable 57% 14% 29% 0% 0% with driving Service is a good value 91% 6% 3% 0% 0% Source: On-Board Survey, November 2015

One rider comment noted that trips can take a long time despite Galt’s small size, and another wrote that s/he sometimes makes a reservation an hour or more ahead, but ends up calling again because the bus has not arrived.

No Shows SCT/LINK has a published policy on no shows. A rider must notify SCT/LINK at least 30 minutes prior to their scheduled ride to cancel, or it will be considered a no show. The policy states that four no shows in 6 months will result in suspension of service. According to Storer’s monthly data reports, the Dial-a-Ride service is experiencing an increasing no show rate. As indicated in Table 7.8, no shows rose by 8.3% between calendar years 2014 and 2015, and are continuing on an upward trajectory, rising from an average of 116 per month in 2014 to 138 per month in the first half of 2016.

Table 7.8 Total and Average No Shows, 2014-2016 Increase 2016

2014 2015 2014 to 2015 (6 mos) # No Shows/Late Cancels 1,388 1,503 8.3% 825 Average/Month 116 125 7.8% 138 Average/Operating Day 5 5 6

Table 7.9 shows the fluctuations in no show rates by month.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 52

Table 7.9 No Shows by Month, 2014-2016

2014 2015 2016 (6 mos) January 157 123 102 February 140 127 129 March 133 128 133 April 121 118 154 May 122 159 184 June 99 129 123 July 71 78 August 97 122 September 97 139 October 145 172 November 85 95 December 121 113

While the Dial-a-Ride service is considered productive, reducing the rate of no shows could potentially return productivity to earlier year levels as well as improve the rate of on-time performance (77% in FY 2014/15).

Saturday Service Usage Given public requests are common for weekend service, an analysis of existing Saturday usage was conducted for this SRTP. Saturday trips comprise about 4% of all trips taken on the Dial-a-Ride service. Table 7.10 summarizes Saturday usage between January 2014 and June 2016. Compared with annual figures for 2014 and 2015, the average number of Saturday trips increased by 14% in the first five months of 2016; it is not known whether this increase will continue for the full year. Table 7.10 Saturday Usage, 2014-2016

% of Average Total Total Lowest # Highest # # of trips Saturday D-A-R of trips on of trips on per Year Trips trips a Saturday a Saturday Saturday 2014 1932 4.2% 14 56 37 2015 1931 4.0% 11 69 37 2016 (5 mos.) 925 4.3% 32 65 42

However, a more detailed analysis of Saturday usage found that demand is extremely low in the first time block, from 6:00 am to 7:59 am, as shown in Table 7.11. This raises a question as to whether it is cost-effective to continue to offer early morning service on Saturdays.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 53

Table 7.11 Saturday Early Morning Usage, January 2014 to June 2016

2014 2015 2016 # of # of # of # of riders Saturdays in # of riders in Saturdays in # of riders in Saturdays in in 6:00-7:59 month that 6:00-7:59 month that 6:00-7:59 month that AM time those trips AM time those trips PM time those trips Month block were made block were made block were made Jan 3 3 0 0 1 1 Feb 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mar 1 1 2 2 0 0 Apr 0 0 0 0 0 0 May 1 1 0 0 0 0 Jun 0 0 0 0 Jul 0 0 0 0 Aug 1 1 0 0 Sep 0 0 3 1 Oct 0 0 0 0 Nov 0 0 0 0 Dec 0 0 1 1 Annual 6 7 6 4 1 1 Total Source: Storer Monthly Reports

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 54

Service Recommendations No-Shows County and Storer staff should assess whether the 30-minute window is sufficient for ride cancellations, or whether it should be lengthened to provide greater notice for adjusting trip schedules. The 2016 Triennial Performance Audit also reported that many of the no-shows are students with subscription rides, and that staff do not want to discourage school attendance by enforcing the policy. However, it is recommended that Storer staff assess which specific riders have a pattern of not cancelling on time or at all. Staff should seek to learn more about what prompts the ongoing no-shows, and to educate the students’ parents, as well as any other frequent no-shows, on the impacts on the Dial-a-Ride service of no shows – such as waiting for passengers when they do not intend to ride, which reduces on-time performance.

Staff should urge using the 24-hour phone service earlier to cancel. If the behavior continues for those who are not students, staff should begin to issue warnings and ultimately enforce the policy. For those who are students, one option could be to adopt a policy of terminating the subscription for a limited, specified period if unjustified no- shows continue. This could provide an incentive to comply because during that period, parents would otherwise have to call for every ride.

Saturday Service The County should assess whether continuing to offer Saturday service during the early morning and evening windows is cost-effective or necessary given the low demand. If not, staff could consider adjusting existing or future contracts.

Alternatively, the County could assess with the community whether shifting any resource savings to limited-hour Sunday service (e.g., 9:30 am to 1:30 pm) would meet local needs. Piloting limited Sunday service, with robust marketing, could test rider demand for attending religious services, Sunday shopping/errands, etc. but allow for ending the service if demand were too low.

The current contract allows for service changes by the County so long as they confer with Storer first. While the fixed cost rate doesn’t change, the County can vary its annual vehicle service hours by 20% within the terms of the existing contract. Major changes require an amendment to the scope of work in the contract since the contract includes service maps, days, and hours as exhibits.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 55

Medical Tripper The County should work with Storer to assess whether extending the hours of the Medical Tripper service on Thursdays and/or Fridays would better serve those who rely on this lifeline service to access non-emergency medical services. Many more people now have medical insurance and the population is aging rapidly, leading to increased demand for medical services. Many medical facilities are adversely impacted and wait times for medical appointments and any related care (lab, pharmacy, x-ray etc.) are becoming longer and more unpredictable at more impacted facilities. Allowing Medical Tripper riders to return somewhat later in the day, e.g., 3:00 PM, might give them a more reasonable window in which to access all medical services they may need during a visit. However, it would need to be determined if two return trips could be made with existing drivers and vehicles, or additional resources would be needed. A survey of those who have ridden the Medical Tripper in the last year (potentially by phone or mail rather than on-board) would be a first step in determining whether the 1:00 PM return time poses a problem for users, or they are able to obtain needed services within the existing timeframe.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 56

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 57

CHAPTER 8 - EAST COUNTY SERVICE

Route 1: Sacramento Express Since 2003, Sacramento County has had an innovative agreement with Amador Transit to provide a shared commuter express route, the Route 1 Sacramento Express, that runs from Sutter Creek to Sacramento. Route 1 includes stops in Amador County, Rancho Murieta in eastern Sacramento County, and in Sacramento at the 65th Street light rail station and Downtown/Midtown. Rancho Murieta has two stops in the south and north part of the community. Figures 8.1 and 8.2 provide an overview of the route.

Figure 8.1 Amador Service Route Map

Source: Amador Transit

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 58

Figure 8.2 Route 1/Sacramento Express Stops in Sacramento

Under the contract, the County pays the cost of the transit service that is operated within Sacramento County, while Amador Transit pays for the portion of the service that is operated within Amador County. The contract was amended in May 2015 to extend through June 30, 2018. The amendment added a net amount due to Amador Transit of $252,730 for three years, or about $84,000/year. Sacramento County and Amador Transit have each purchased buses for the route. Currently, Sacramento County owns the current two vehicles and leases them to Amador Transit for $1.00 per year.

Route 1 offers one morning run and one afternoon run into Sacramento and two return runs in the morning and afternoon (see schedule in Table 8.1 on the next page). The service does not operate on the holidays shown in Figure 8.3. The on-board survey yielded data only on riders originating in Amador County, not from Rancho Murieta.

Figure 8.3 Holiday Schedule Holidays – Not in Operation New Year’s Day Columbus Day Martin Luther King Jr. Day Veteran’s Day Presidents Day Thanksgiving Day Memorial Day The day after Thanksgiving Independence Day Christmas Eve Labor Day Christmas Day

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 59

Table 8.1 Sacramento Express: Route Times

Sutter Hill Transit Center 6:15 3:30 Drytown (via Hwy 49 Bypass) 6:23 3:38 DeMartini – Carbondale Road 6:30 3:45 Rancho Murieta Parkway 6:42 3:57 Rancho Murieta North 6:49 3:59 University & 65th (Light Rail & Hornet Line) 7:17 4:29 L St. & 29th St. (Sutter Medical Center) 7:26 4:36 L St. & 14th St. (Yolo Bus to Airport) 7:31 4:41 Capitol Mall between 8th St. & 7th St 7:34 4:44 L St. & 4th St. (Westfield Plaza) 7:37 4:47

Westbound from Sutter Hill Sacramento to Center Transit J St.& 3rd St. (Across from Perko’s) 7:39 4:50 J St.& 3rd St. (Across from Perko’s) 7:50 5:05 J St. & 11th St 7:55 5:11 J St. & 14th St. (Convention Center) 7:58 5:15 J St.& 28th St. 8:01 5:20 University & 65th St. (Light Rail & Hornet Line) 8:07 5:28 Hwy. 16 East of Hedge Ave. (Country Side Diner) 8:18 5:39 Rancho Murieta North 8:39 6:00 Rancho Murieta Parkway 8:46 6:07 DeMartini -Carbondale Rd 8:53 6:14 Drytown 9:00 6:21

Eastbound from Sacramento to Sutter Hill TransitCenter Sutter Hill Transit Center (via Hwy. 49 Bypass) 9:09 6:30 Source: Amador Transit

Fare Structure Fares vary with distance, segment and whether or not the rider has a monthly pass for Sacramento Regional Transit (RT) or Amador Transit (see Table 8.2).

Table 8.2 Current Fare Types and Prices Segment & Fare Type General Senior/Disabled Student Amador-Sacramento Regular Fare $7.00 $4.15 $5.50 With RT monthly pass $4.50 $2.75 $2.75 Rancho Murieta-Sacramento Regular Fare $3.00 $1.65 $3.00 With RT monthly pass $0.50 $0.25 $0.25 Amador-Rancho Murieta Regular Fare $4.00 $2.50 $2.50 With Amador Transit monthly pass $1.50 $1.50 $1.50

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 60

Performance Ridership on the Sacramento Express took a significant dip during 2009 in the midst of the recession, but rose with the improvement in the economy. However, ridership began dropping again in FY 2014/15 (Table 8.3). It is unknown whether this reflects retirements among older riders, particularly state workers, the shifting of employment sites out of central Sacramento, or other factors. The reduction in riders has also resulted in a reduced fare recovery ratio. East County is also covered by the combined Sacramento County fare ratio for TDA purposes.

Table 8.3 Route 1 Sacramento Express Ridership Change FY FY FY FY FY 12/13- 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 FY 15/16 Passengers 6,871 7,460 5,828 4,748 -31% Year to year change 9% -22% -19% Vehicle Revenue Hours 1,076 1,081 1,081 1,085 1% Passengers per Hour 6.4 6.9 5.4 4.4 -31% Year to year change 8% -22% -19% Fare recovery ratio 15.1% 15.1% 12.1% 12.7% Source: National Transit Database and Storer Monthly Reports

Service Recommendations It is recommended that Sacramento County maintain its partnership with Amador Transit. Despite recent drops in ridership, there are many sound reasons for the County to continue the collaboration:

• Without the shared arrangement, the route would still pass right through Rancho Murieta yet offer no stops. • The shared service reduces vehicles, VMT, congestion, and wear and tear on Jackson Highway in Sacramento County, and helps with regional air quality. • It brings from both counties to central Sacramento employees who likely spend money for lunch and other goods and services, contributing to the economy and county sales tax receipts. • The 2010 Census Transportation Planning Package indicated that 165 Rancho Murieta residents work in downtown Sacramento. Current riders represent less than 20 percent of those commuters, meaning that there may be more who could be persuaded to use the route and reduce their commute costs (including fuel, parking, and vehicle maintenance costs). County staff should continue marketing the service as well as monitoring performance to insure the service is being used.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 61

CHAPTER 9 - GOALS, POLICIES, & PRIOR RECOMMENDATIONS

Both Sacramento County and the City of Galt have adopted goals and policies related to transit service. These are detailed below, as well as recent outcomes of the Unmet Transit Needs process, Triennial Performance Audit, and SCT/LINK management/governance study.

Sacramento County Goals and Policies Sacramento County’s goal is to promote a balanced and integrated transit system to maximize mobility in a safe and efficient manner. The following policies will accomplish this goal by promoting transit services within urban corridors of dense population and employment, assuring that users are provided with adequate transportation choices, addressing user needs, developing convenient transfers between transportation systems, and ensuring adequate funding for the system.

 Collaborate with transit service providers to provide transit services within the County that are responsive to existing and future transit demand.

 Promote transit services in appropriate commercial corridors and where population and employment densities are sufficient or could be increased to support those transit services.

 Collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions and other agencies to achieve land use patterns and densities in areas planned for development that support transit services, preserve adequate rights of way, and enhance transit services in the designated transit corridors.

 Collaborate with the Sacramento Area Council of Governments and transit service providers to pursue all available sources of funding for transit services when consistent with General Plan policies and long-term funding capabilities.

 Consider the transit needs of senior, disabled, low-income, and transit dependent persons in making recommendations regarding transit services.

 Collaborate with transit service providers for the development of facilities that provide for efficient links and interconnectivity with different transportation mode, including bicyclists and pedestrians.

 The County shall develop right of way acquisition guidelines for the implementation of transit services shown on the Transportation Plan.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 62

 Consider the expansion of Neighborhood Shuttle services in unincorporated area communities.

 Public Facilities Financing Plans shall incorporate capital costs for transit.

 Infrastructure Master Plans shall include transit planning.

 Collaborate with local transit service providers in obtaining all available sources of funding for the development, improvement, and maintenance of the transit system.

 The County shall work with transit service providers to establish and implement development guidelines to maximize the ability of new development and redevelopment to support planned transit services.

 New development and redevelopment shall have an orientation to travel patterns that are conducive to transit service. This will include concentration of development in centers and along linear corridors such that trip origins and destinations are concentrated near transit services.

 The County shall collaborate with transit service providers to promote the phased implementation of transit services to all growth areas as development occurs.

 In BRT corridors that are anticipated to be congested in the future, the County shall implement all feasible measures to minimize the effects of congestion on transit travel times.

City of Galt Goals and Policies The City of Galt set a goal in its General Plan to promote a safe and efficient transit system that will help reduce congestion, improve the environment, and provide viable non-automotive means of transportation in and through Galt. The following policies aim to accomplish this goal and enhance the existing transit system.

 The City shall work with transit service providers to provide bus transit services that are timely, cost-effective, and responsive to growth patterns and existing and future transit demand.

 The City shall consider the transit needs of senior, disabled, minority, low- income, and transit-dependent persons in making decisions regarding transit services and in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 63

 The City shall consider families’ needs in transportation planning efforts and shall promote safe and convenient methods of transportation between school, home, retail shopping, and child care.

 The City should encourage the creation of rail transit to link Galt with the Elk Grove/Sacramento and Lodi/Stockton metropolitan areas.

 The City shall investigate opportunities for new Park-n-Ride facilities to be located in proximity to transit hubs and major transit corridors. Opportunities may include, but are not limited to, proximity to the City Hall bus stop, new highway interchanges, and major regional commercial centers.

 The City should expand its existing transit planning efforts as the city grows and ridership demand increases. Adoption of a Transit Plan should be considered.

Unmet Transit Needs Findings The Unmet Transit Needs process is a yearly review of transit needs of people who live in the SACOG four-county Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) area made up of Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba counties and the cities within. The process is required by the California State Transportation Development Act (TDA). SACOG staff conducts public workshops (hearings) throughout the four-county area to receive comments from the public that will help determine if there are unmet transit needs. The SACOG Board makes final findings regarding which jurisdictions have “unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet.”

An unmet transit need is an expressed or identified need for transit services that would likely serve those most dependent on transit, and which is not currently being met through the existing system of public transportation services. Unmet transit needs must also comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and be accessible to all.

To be “reasonable to meet” an unmet transit need must have community acceptance reflecting the need of more than one person; be equitable and open to the general public, including the elderly and those with disabilities; have potential ridership; and have the ability to be cost effective and meet the required farebox recovery ratio.

If the SACOG Board finds any unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet in a city or county, then Transit Development Act (TDA) funds must first be spent to fulfill those transit needs. However, if the SACOG Board does not find any unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet or if there are funds remaining after all unmet transit needs have been met, a city or county (with the exception of the jurisdictions within the Sacramento Regional Transit District) can use TDA funds for streets and roads purposes.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 64

SACOG annually holds an Unmet Transit Need hearing in Galt, which is advertised and conducted in both English and Spanish. Since the changes to the Highway 99 Express and Dial-a-Ride services, increasingly fewer comments have been received at either the hearings or in writing, as shown in Table 9.1. During the Unmet Transit Needs Process, only one unmet transit need was found reasonable to meet for FY 2015/16, requesting that an additional vehicle be added to the Dial-A-Ride service, as noted below. Table 9.1 South Sacramento County Annual Unmet Transit Needs Summary, 2015/2016 to 2017/2018 # of Comments # of # of People Who For Fiscal Identified as “Unmet Meeting date Testimonies at Submitted Written Year Transit Needs” Hearing Comments Reasonable to Meet October 16, 2014 2015/16 6 4 1 November 4, 2015 2016/17 1 2 0 October 3, 2016 2017/18 0 1 0

Status of Needs Identified through the Unmet Transit Needs Process, 2015/2016-2017/2018 Service Initiated to Year Unmet Transit Need That is Reasonable to Meet Address Unmet Transit Need? 2014 An additional vehicle should be added to the Dial-A-Ride An additional vehicle service during the morning and evening hours when school was added to the begins and ends to serve non-students in order to reduce SCT/LINK Dial-A-Ride wait times. service in 2015. Source: SACOG

2013 Triennial Performance Audit Recommendations State regulators require that transit systems respond to and/or implement recommendations made by prior performance audits. Table 9.2 below lists the recommendations provided in the June 2013 Triennial Performance Audit of South and East Sacramento County Transit, submitted by Majic Consulting Group, and their current status.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 65

Table 9.2 Summary of 2013 Triennial Performance Audit Recommendations Recommendation Responsibility Priority Timeframe Status/Update 1 Develop and implement a South County High FY 13/14 Revised Highway plan to increase the Transit 99 Express. efficiency and effectiveness Management of the South County Transit and SACOG Implemented a operations, including Galt blended fare ratio Dial-A-Ride, Hwy 99 for Sacramento Express and Delta Route, County. to achieve a 10% or high farebox recovery ratio. 2 Implement changes to the Sacramento High FY 13/14 Consultant study current institutional Board of of alternatives structure of SCT/LINK to Supervisors completed. As provide dedicated and Galt City described in next management and policy Council section, County oversight of the system. and City to amend existing agreement as needed. 3 Institute an improved South County Medium FY 14/15 Detailed monthly Performance Measurement Transit reports now System (PMS) to track and Management provided. analyze key indicators on a preferably monthly, not quarterly basis. 4 Prepare a strategic Transit Medium FY 14/15 Website was marketing plan, including Coordinator updated. updating and revising the and County SCT/LINK website. Staff

2016 Triennial Performance Audit Recommendations Table 9.3 lists the recommendations provided in the 2016 Triennial Performance Audit of South and East Sacramento County Transit, prepared by Majic Consulting Group.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 66

Table 9.3 Summary of 2016 Triennial Performance Audit Recommendations Recommendation Responsibility Priority Timeframe 1 Review different service options South County Transit High FY 16/17 for the Galt Dial-A-Ride. Management and SACOG 2 Enhance Safety program for Contractor High FY 16/17 South County operations and management with ensure East County adheres to oversight by South the same standards. County Transit Management 3 Institute an improved South County Transit Medium FY 16/17 Performance Measurement Management and System (PMS) to track and SACOG analyze key indicators on a preferably monthly, if not quarterly basis. 4 Prepare a strategic marketing County Transit Medium FY 17/18 plan for both East and South Management County, including updating and revising the SCT/Link website. 5 Enhance contractor oversight for County Transit High FY 17/18 both East and South County Management operations.

Recommendation 1 is addressed in Chapter 7 and Recommendation 4 is addressed in Chapter 10. Recommendations 2, 3, and 5 are addressed in the following sections.

SCT/LINK Performance Standards Both the 2013 and 2016 Triennial Performance Audits contained the recommendation for SCT/LINK to “Institute an improved Performance Measurement System (PMS) to track and analyze key indicators on a preferably monthly, if not quarterly basis,” and to adopt more formal minimum standards and target objectives.

The County’s contract with Storer for the SCT/LINK service includes a variety of performance measures (see Appendix A). Table 9.4 summarizes the key standards and measures in the current contract. Storer’s monthly reports have become more detailed since the 2013 recommendation, but they are still primarily formatted as invoicing documents. They could be further improved, including breaking out on-time performance by route and for Dial-a-Ride service.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 67

Table 9.4 Current Contractual SCT/LINK Standards and Measures Measure Standard in Service Contract Measure in Service Contract Missed trips All fixed route trips are served and A fixed route trip that begins all runs start at the published time more than 15 minutes late not due to traffic Missed Pick-Ups For community transit - All >2% of scheduled trips are scheduled trips served missed through no fault of the rider Late Pick-Ups For community transit - Never <90% of trips served during the more than 10 minutes early or scheduled pickup window. more than 10 minutes late Travel Time For community transit - All riders' > 5% of riders' trips are longer trips less than 30 minutes riding than 45 minutes riding time time DR Trip Denials For community transit - Schedule > 5% of next day trip requests capacity to serve at least 95% of cannot be served due to capacity trip requests based on the constraints. Next day trip expected frequency distribution requests include all trip requests within 1 to 7 calendar days ADA Trip Denials For HWY 99 Route -- Provide door >1 % of next day trip requests to bus stop service for ADA cannot be served due to capacity certified riders constraints. Next day trip requests include all trip requests within 1 to 7 calendar days Service < 15,000 combined revenue interruptions due to vehicle miles per mechanical road calls road call. Customer All complaints will be tracked > 5 substantiated complaints Complaints using the customer service form. regarding the transit service per Copies of all complaints will be month. submitted with management report

SCT/LINK Governance SCT/LINK is unique in that both Sacramento County and the City of Galt are involved in ongoing service planning and implementation of service. This arrangement is necessary due to the geographic area, with Galt as the primary urbanized area and the center of most transit trips. Day-to-day operations are carried out by the contractor, Storer Transportation, with Sacramento County as the contract administrator.

The County of Sacramento has an alternative modes manager who is also an engineer in the County Department of Public Works. This position reports to the Chief of the Engineering and Planning Division, who reports to the Public Works Director. The

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 68

alternative modes manager oversees the replacement of vehicles and changes to routes, schedules and hours. In addition, there are contractual agreements between Sacramento County and the City of Galt.

In past years, the City of Galt had a transit manager as part of the Department of Public Works. This position was responsible for grant management, special studies, budgeting, and coordinating transit services with other department functions. Transit-related duties are now just a part of one Administrative Analyst’s responsibilities, which also include oversight of the department’s operating and capital budget.

Both Sacramento County and the City of Galt contribute revenues to pay for the transit services as well as vehicle replacement. Both agencies also review the performance and efficiency of the various routes and services as well as encourage potential riders to use transit.

As noted above, a study entitled the SCT/LINK Management Improvement Plan, was completed in July 2013 by Moore and Associates to review and develop alternatives to SCT/LINK’s institutional structure. As part of the study, Moore and Associates reviewed existing transit functions and developed the Exhibit below. Note that SACOG is involved in service planning as well as overseeing Transportation Development Act funds, which are the major source of funding for SCT/LINK.

As part of its work, Moore and Associates also completed a review of potential governance structures, included as Appendix C to this SRTP. The alternatives included a Joint Powers Authority (JPA), a Memorandum of Understanding, a Regional Transit Authority, and a Regional Transit Coordinating Council. Exhibit 3.3.2 in Appendix C provides an overview of how these four structures compared for SCT/LINK. The study recommended the JPA option.

However, both County and City of Galt elected bodies were reluctant to pursue a JPA, and the City has not expressed interest in assuming full responsibility for the transit

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 69

program. Rather than pursue changes to the governance for SCT/LINK, both Sacramento County and the City of Galt instead agreed to review and amend as needed their current agreement, SCT/LINK Sharing of Responsibilities and Costs. Sacramento County thus remains the key administrator for the transit service and funding. The current agreement continues to April 30, 2017, so will need to be reviewed and extended during the period of the SRTP.

County Staffing Storer provides the day-to-day management of the SCT/LINK service through its operations contract with the County. The agreement between the County and the City of Galt identifies the County as the responsible entity for management and administration of the SCT/LINK program. No staff allocations are discussed in the Agreement.

As noted above, a County engineer serves as the County’s alternative modes manager. Half of his time is allocated to the South and East County transit program, including contract administration, reporting, monthly meetings with Storer staff, and coordination with Amador Transit’s General Manager concerning East County service.

The SCT/LINK Management Improvement Plan recommended an increase to 2.5 FTE to manage the program. The 2016 TDA Performance Audit also assessed program staffing, including the fact that the County’s current .5 FTE is nearing retirement age. Triennial Performance Audit Recommendation #5 calls for enhancing contractor oversight for both East and South County operations. The Audit proposed an addition of 1 FTE at the County to increase the capacity to manage, market, and monitor the transit programs, stating:

While 2.5 FTE located in one location would be optimal, that is not realistic in the current environment. However, it is suggested that the [current 0.5 FTE] position be augmented by one (1) FTE in the position of “Transit Assistant,” who would report to the current engineer and handle most of the day-to-day administrative responsibilities. The staff would be responsible for operations oversight, scheduling, grant procurement, marketing, and management, as well as financial and operational reporting. This arrangement would have the added advantage of back up coverage and possible succession planning to ensure continuity of transit management.1

1 2016 Triennial Performance Audit of South and East Sacramento County Transit, p. 6-15.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 70

SCT/LINK Fare Structure The following analysis of the fare structure was requested as part of developing this SRTP.

SCT/LINK fares and discounts vary by route and distance traveled, as shown in Table 9.5. Coupon books may be purchased by mail or in person at the SCT/LINK office. Riders who transfer between SCT/LINK services pay the full fare on the highest priced route, and then receive a free transfer to complete their one-way trip.

Fare Survey SACOG conducted a fare survey in 2016, also in Table 9.5, of transit operators providing services similar to SCT/LINK. It appears that SCT/LINK has fares that are relatively in line with others when travel distance and types of service are taken into account.

However, SCT/Link has not raised fares since 2008. Despite the current surplus discussed in Chapter 11, costs do increase over time and fare recovery ratios could drop without a fare increase at some point. SCT/Link is also part of the Connect Card project, which will allow riders to use one electronic fare payment card across nine transit systems in the region, including SCT/LINK. The Connect Card was launched on RT’s system in the fall of 2016, and will be implemented on SCT/LINK in 2017. Full implementation of the universal fare card medium may simplify some of the fare purchase processes, as well as transfers to non-SCT/LINK services, but may make normalizing fares across systems more effective.

There are some unique fare options in the region that could also potentially benefit SCT/LINK and riders if implemented. For example, Yuba-Sutter Transit has highly discounted passes for both youth and seniors that are funded by Air Quality District grants, and could also potentially qualify for Cap & Trade funding. The implementation of these discounted passes has led to significant increases in ridership while allowing the agency to maintain funding levels needed to provide service. Piloting this type of program could allow SCT/LINK to increase ridership while maintaining necessary funding levels.

Another option would be to offer a combination pass, as surveying found that many passengers are transferring to other providers. Both Yuba-Sutter Transit and Roseville Transit offer passes that allow travel on both their services and Sacramento Regional Transit and the Capitol Corridor respectively. Currently, the shared Amador Transit Sacramento Express service provides a differential rate with an RT pass, but SCT/LINK does not.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 71

Table 9.5 Fare Survey

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 72

Organizational and Fare Policy Recommendations

Staffing Sacramento County currently has a surplus of TDA funds available. If the County does not need those funds for operating service or capital purposes, surplus funds could go to the Sacramento Regional Transit District. This shift would need to be approved by the County and SACOG. Since the County has available resources, the County should consider the Triennial Performance Audit recommendation to expand its staffing of the transit program.

Performance Standards and Reporting Storer and the County should develop a mutually agreeable report format that includes key indicators, and adds on-time performance measures. Appendix B includes samples of monthly report formats used by RT and Paratransit, Inc. to report monthly, year-to- date, and year-over-year performance of their systems. The 2016 Triennial Performance Audit Recommendation #3 provides additional suggestions for improvements.

Fares In light of the increasingly unpredictable amounts of transit funding coming from the state and federal governments, SCT/Link might consider phasing in slightly higher fares in order to be able to maintain current levels of service and fare recovery ratios. Phased increases could allow for standardizing fares to help support the Connect Card universal fare card system, as well as offer potential for setting up future transfer agreements with other regional operators. Table 9.6 provides an option for how fare increases could be phased in over time. SCT/LINK is looking to phase out various ticket books with full implementation of the Connect Card, so ticket book price increases might then not apply.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 73

Table 9.6 Potential Fare Phasing

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 74

Table 9.6 Suggested Fare Phasing (continued)

After fully implementing the Connect Card and phasing in any new fare rates, SCT/LINK should assess the practicality of phasing out all other fare media (paper passes and/or cash), and making all fare types available primarily on the Connect Card, as well as any future mobile ticketing applications developed in the region.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 75

CHAPTER 10 - MARKETING

SCT/LINK

Printed Materials SCT/LINK offers downloadable brochure packets for each route on their website. They are also available on all their buses, through the mail, and at the Galt Library, Galt City Hall, UC Davis Medical Center, and businesses around Galt. SCT/LINK is in the process of expanding the number of local businesses that have the brochures on hand as well.

The brochures provide abundant information on route times, fares, transfer points, ridership rules, and hours of operation in both English and Spanish and include a route map. The display of information is clear and graphically appealing.

However, not all brochures provide clear information on senior and student age requirements for discounted fares, office mailing information, and process for purchasing monthly or discounted passes. This information should be clarified on all brochures. In addition, information on the Connect Card should be added as the fare medium is implemented.

More information should also be added describing expanded services such as the Medical Tripper and rural Dial-A-Ride.

Website The survey included a question on the means by which riders found out about SCT/LINK service. Table 10.1 shows the results by route.

Table 10.1 How riders found out/learned about the service HWY 99 Express Delta Route Dial-a-Ride I saw the bus and/or bus stop 17% 67% 27% Family or Friend 48% 8% 46% SCT/LINK Website 16% 8% 8% Cosumnes River College 11% - - Other school/college 1% - 5% Employer 1% 8% 3% Co-Worker 5% - - Galt Herald 1% 8% 3% Galt Senior Center - 3% City of Galt - 5%

Consistent with many other transit routes, the largest proportion of riders learned of the service through seeing a bus and/or stop and word of mouth. Next was the SCT/LINK website,

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 76

followed by CRC which includes a link to the Highway 99 Express on their website at https://www.crc.losrios.edu/about/publictrans.

The SCT/LINK website at http://www.SCT/LINK.com/ is fairly simple and provides basic ridership information. The home page features a short description of services with additional information links to the side. Links to other transit operators in the region, community-based groups, and Title VI notices can be found at the bottom of the page.

The home page consists only of plain text and lacks any visuals except for the SCT/LINK logo at the top. There are individual pages for fares and service change updates. There is a dedicated page for each route featuring images of the brochures and clearly marked links for download. Information on the Medical Tripper and limited rural services are included in the Dial-A-Ride brochure but are in a separate link on the website entitled “Extended Services.” The Franchise Tax Board Shuttle service provided by the Department of Health Services is not advertised online or in the brochures because it only serves CalWORKS participants.

The following are suggestions to improve the organization, clarity, and distribution of ridership information online:

• Currently SCT/LINK webpages on some computers fill the screen with no scrollbar. Revise the website format so it is more vertical and there is always a scrollbar on the right.

• Update SCT/LINK home page to include visuals of buses, drivers and riders. Use different headings and text styles to distinguish announcements from ongoing information.

• Update the fare information page with regular text rather than a PDF. Clarify discount eligibility by route and by age for seniors and students, (e.g. Student ID, age requirement), and clarify where and how to purchase monthly and discounted passes in person and by mail.

• As implementation nears, add information, directions, and links on using the Connect Card, including the estimated starting date on SCT/LINK.

• Clarify transfer policies between different transit operators.

• Provide options to enlarge text and view site in different formats to make site accessible for all users. Continue to provide downloadable brochures, but provide information on route pages in a format that is usable to screen readers and translators. Add Google Translator to allow riders to translate pages into any language.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 77

• Specify whether Spanish speakers are available for assistance, and add a phone number for TDD.

• Create a search option on the website to allow for quick searches for specific information/pages.

• Create an About page to briefly discuss SCT/LINK’s goals, purpose, and history.

• Add to the How to Ride page the cancellation window for Dial-A-Ride, and information on availability of bike racks on buses.

• Create a FAQ page to assist new riders to the system.

• Join the Transit Partner Program through Google and incorporate a SCT/LINK Trip Planner available through Google website and mobile app.

• Establish a fare calculator tied to the trip planner to include SCT/LINK routes and other regional transit services.

• Provide information on Park and Ride locations for commuters and indicate whether bike racks or lockers available on site.

• Provide written and/or video step-by-step directions for riding the bus.

• Currently, there is a link only for complaints, but many surveyed riders had positive comments about the service and specific drivers. Establish a Contacts page with a customer service form or email for information and service comments.

Bus Stops All bus stops have signs indicating that SCT/LINK provides bus service to that location. Stops in Sacramento typically follow RT routes and have stickers with the SCT/LINK logo on the RT bus stop sign.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 78

Figure 10.1 SCT/LINK Sticker on RT Bus Stop Sign at 16th & L Streets in Sacramento

Targeted Marketing Efforts SCT/LINK in the past has largely relied on weekly newspaper ads in the Galt Herald, as well as listings in the local phone book, and distributing brochures and magnets. Marketing efforts have been limited and lacked a strategic approach. Developing and implementing a marketing plan as recommended in the 2016 triennial audit can help guide new marketing efforts focused on the different services and their target markets.

Given the large growth in internet use and smart phone users, SCT/LINK can capitalize on this trend to capture a wider population of riders by using social media and other platforms to engage the public. Many existing transit operators (e.g. Yolobus, Regional Transit) use Facebook and Twitter to communicate news and bus updates to riders. By joining the Transit Partner Program through Google, SCT/LINK can integrate their system into Google Maps and provide a trip planning tool for riders. The planning tool can also link to the website.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 79

In addition to expanding their online presence, SCT/LINK can build awareness by conducting public outreach at schools and community events such as the Galt Flea Market, annual spring Strawberry Festival, and summer Galt Festival.

Specific suggestions for targeting prospective riders include the following:

• Coordinate with businesses and local groups (e.g. Galt Historical Society) to publicize SCT/LINK services in newsletters and include information and a link on their websites. The City of Galt publishes a quarterly newsletter, Galt Connections. The Galt Parks and Recreation Department has a Galt Senior Scene website (at http://www.ci.galt.ca.us/index.aspx?page=253 ) and monthly newsletter that could be used to publicize Dial-A-Ride.

• Partner with senior groups and organizations to coordinate transportation for field trips and other activities. Periodically host information sessions at the Senor Center with a demonstration bus to show people how to ride and plan a trip.

• Develop a senior buddy programs to assist and teach new riders.

• Request transit information and links be added to the Galt Flea Market website. Currently the Directions and Parking page only includes information for travel by vehicle (http://www.ci.galt.ca.us/index.aspx?page=103).

• Conduct public outreach (e.g. booths, freebies and raffle prizes) at major festivals and events. Promote transit as an option for reaching major community events (e.g. Galt Strawberry Festival) when advertising directions & lodging on the City of Galt website.

• Request individuals to follow Twitter and Facebook accounts in exchange for complementary one-time use, non-transferable bus passes.

• Work with Consumnes River College to educate youth about transit services and alternative modes of transportation, including in orientation information.

• Work with the local elementary and high school districts to provide information if Dial-a- Ride capacity is available.

• Coordinate marketing strategy with May is Bike Month campaign to encourage use of transit and bicycling for commuters to Sacramento.

• Consider offering a discounted summer youth pass program to encourage youth to use the service in the summer months if excess capacity is available on buses.

• Publicize transit services in the local water district newsletter.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 80

• Ask other regional operators to post SCT/LINK website to their sites.

• Post online testimonies of bus riders and drivers to promote positive attitudes towards transit and/or place overhead cards with photos and quotes on buses.

• Establish a Yelp account for each bus line to solicit customer feedback and identify major issues with existing services. Advertise service information and post surveys and announcements for public hearings through the site.

• Highlight that the Galt-Sacramento Commuter Express offers free Wi-Fi to encourage ridership.

• Work with new developments near Highway 99, including eventually Liberty Ranch, to include information on SCT/LINK services with sales information for prospective buyers who work in areas served by commuter routes

East County There has been very little marketing done for the Route 1 Sacramento Express service provided by Amador Transit under contract with the Sacramento County DOT. The Amador Transit website (http://amadortransit.com/) is laid out well, and information is easy to locate, but it isn’t immediately clear that Rancho Murieta residents would think to look at their site. Currently information is only listed on a Sacramento County DOT Transit page that refers to Galt Transit (http://www.sacdot.com/Pages/GaltTransit.aspx).

County and Amador Transit staff should work together to figure out a better system for publicizing the service on-line for Rancho Murieta as well as Amador County residents, possibly through a separate page for the service that Google and other web browsers will easily pick up and list at the top of any web search.

It would also help to have a direct link to the service listed on the Rancho Murieta website (http://ranchomurieta.com/), which has a membership of more than 2,000 community member users. Searching for “transit” and “transportation” do not bring up direct links to the service.

Other possibilities for improving residents’ awareness of the service include:

• Current timetables and brochures posted and provided at the Rancho Murieta stops (potentially with Route 1 bus drivers asked to restock periodically). • Brochures and/or notices at Murieta Plaza, the shopping center for Rancho Murieta, including the Raley’s set to open temporarily in January 2017 until a Bel-Air grocery store completes construction. • Articles in the monthly online Pipeline newsletter sent out to residents of Rancho Murieta, which could potentially highlight the service. Story ideas include: an overview of the service

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 81

including the wifi capability; alerts on events or holiday closures; a trip calculator vs. driving; and/or a profile of a resident who regularly rides and enjoys the service.

The Sacramento Region 511 website Transit section has also been updated to show more clearly the Amador Transit connection to Sacramento County (http://www.sacregion511.org/transit/list-of-transit-providers/).

Marketing Recommendations An increase in marketing could potentially increase ridership on all SCT/LINK services and the Route 1 Sacramento Express. A three-year marketing plan should be developed that aims to improve and expand marketing of both SCT/LINK and East County services utilizing suggestions in this chapter and in the 2016 Triennial Performance Audit. Marketing efforts do not need to be overly costly. Rather, they could be phased improvements focused on the website, brochures, and community-based marketing efforts targeted to market segments for the different services. The marketing plan should include a budget and timetable, as well as a staffing plan identifying who will be responsible for the various marketing and outreach efforts.

The additional staff recommended in Chapter 9 could be tasked with developing the marketing plan and undertaking marketing efforts. A consultant, SACOG and/or paid intern(s) with website, graphic design, or marketing skills might also be enlisted to provide support on different aspects of developing and implementing various marketing strategies.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 82

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 83

CHAPTER 11 - FINANCIAL AND SERVICE PLAN

This chapter provides a financial and service plan that ensures that the levels of service and capital improvement projects contained in the SRTP are financially supported throughout the FY2017-2021 planning period. In general, the five-year Financial Plan forecast anticipates sufficient operating and capital funding to continue existing levels of service, cover future capital needs, and potentially expand staffing and/or services, while maintaining a surplus.

Operating Expenses Sacramento County contracts for a combination of fixed bus routes, commuter service, and demand response services. As described in previous chapters, the transit services offered by Sacramento County are provided through the contract with Storer Transit Systems for SCT/LINK services and with Amador Transit for East County commuter service. Storer Transit’s rates adjust upward every March 1st in accordance with the contract terms. For FY 2014/15, the rate for the Highway 99 Express, Delta Route, and Dial-a-Ride services increased 2% and the rate for the Amador Transit Sacramento Commuter Express service increased 2.45%. To be conservative, the Financial Model uses a 2.5% annual increase in operating expenses for all services during the years of the SRTP.

Table 11.1 provides an overview of the operating cost assumptions contained in the Financial Plan for maintaining existing services. Operating costs are escalated at 2.5% from FY 2016 to FY 2021.

Tables 11.2 and 11.3 show the assumed levels of operating costs and vehicle revenue hours. Operating costs are derived from 2013-2015 costs documented in the 2016 Triennial Performance Audit, and include all expenses incurred in operating and maintaining the system, including service contracts, routine vehicle maintenance, fuel, and a number of other items. Vehicle revenue hours (VRH) are kept constant throughout the SRTP planning period, at 11,500 hours per year for fixed and commuter routes and 10,400 hours per year for Dial-a- Ride.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 84

Table 11.1 Operating Cost Assumptions Assumption Operating Costs Base Year: FY 2014/15 Incremental Service Cost: $92/Vehicle Revenue Hour Delta Route Growth Rate: 2.5% annual Base Year: FY 2014/15 Highway 99 Express Incremental Service Cost: $92/Vehicle Revenue Hour Growth Rate: 2.5% annual Galt-Sacramento Base Year: FY 2014/15 Commuter Express Incremental Service Cost: $71/Vehicle Revenue Hour Growth Rate: 2.5% annual Base Year: FY 2014/15 Dial-a-Ride Incremental Service Cost: $92/Vehicle Revenue Hour Growth Rate: 2.5% annual Sacramento Express Base Year: FY 2014/15 Incremental Service Cost: $111/Vehicle Revenue Hour Growth Rate: 2.5% annual

Table 11.2 Operating Expenses per Vehicle Revenue Hour 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 SOUTH COUNTY Delta Route $96.96 $99.39 $101.87 $104.42 $107.03 Highway 99 Express $96.96 $99.39 $101.87 $104.42 $107.03 Galt-Sacramento Commuter Express $74.48 $76.34 $78.25 $80.21 $82.21 Dial-a-Ride $96.46 $98.87 $101.34 $103.87 $106.47 EAST COUNTY Sacramento Express $116.42 $119.33 $122.31 $125.37 $128.51

Table 11.3 Annual Vehicle Revenue Hours 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 SOUTH COUNTY Delta Route 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 Highway 99 Express 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 6,800 Galt-Sacramento Commuter Express 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 Dial-a-Ride 10,400 10,400 10,400 10,400 10,400 EAST COUNTY Sacramento Express 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 85

Table 11.4 calculates the total annual cost of operating transit services based on these operating costs and vehicle revenue hours, and the addition of SCT/LINK’s estimated annual share of the regional Connect Card operating costs. Actual cost sharing for ongoing Connect Card operating expenses is dependent on negotiations among members of the Connect Card Consortium.

Table 11.4 Operating Expenses by Route and Totals

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 SOUTH COUNTY $1,982,340 $2,031,899 $2,082,696 $2,134,764 $2,188,133

Delta Route $223,013 $228,588 $234,303 $240,161 $246,165 Highway 99 Express $659,343 $675,826 $692,722 $710,040 $727,791 Galt-Sacramento Commuter Express $96,822 $99,243 $101,724 $104,267 $106,874 Dial-a-Ride $1,003,162 $1,028,241 $1,053,947 $1,080,296 $1,107,303 EAST COUNTY $128,062 $131,263 $134,545 $137,908 $141,356 Sacramento Express $128,062 $131,263 $134,545 $137,908 $141,356 Connect Card Share $30,000 $36,000 $43,200 $51,840 $62,208 Total South & East Counties $2,140,402 $2,199,162 $2,260,441 $2,324,512 $2,391,697

Capital Expenses Capital expenses contained in the SRTP include vehicle replacements, bus stop improvements, and some minor facilities improvements for SCT/LINK. These are summarized in Table 11.5. The figures also include an annual reserve for Connect Card equipment. The reserve could cover costs for shifting existing Connect Card equipment from old to new fleet vehicles, purchase of Connect Card equipment for any expansion vehicles, or other capital needs as identified by the Connect Card Consortium. No expansion vehicles are included, although sufficient funds are projected to be available for additional vehicles if a service is expanded.

Table 11.5 Capital Expenses 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 SCT/LINK Fleet Replacements $254,206 $350,805 $363,083 $187,895 $291,707 Joint SCT/LINK-City of Galt Transit Facility $3,803,855 Connect Card Capital Reserve $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 TOTAL SOUTH COUNTY $4,068,061 $360,805 $373,083 $197,895 $301,707

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 86

Fleet The fleet for the Route 1 Sacramento Express service consists of two vehicles. Sacramento County owns one of the buses and Amador Transit owns the other. The county-owned bus was replaced in October 2016 for $167,498. No other replacements are expected during the period of the SRTP.

The County does have a number of replacement vehicles for the SCT/LINK service that will need to be purchased within the planning period of the SRTP. Table 11.6 provides a listing of Sacramento County’s planned fleet replacement schedule.

SCT/LINK Vehicles With a revenue vehicle fleet of 16 vehicles, SCT/LINK is able to maintain revenue service without concern about a shortage of vehicles. The current smaller vehicle fleet was purchased by both Sacramento County and the City of Galt. Recently, Sacramento County purchased an over the road coach as a second bus to expand the schedule and capacity of the Galt- Sacramento Commuter Express service.

The vehicles are averaging five years and 140,000 miles before replacement, well within transit industry standards. Based on these replacement standards, Table 11.6 shows the expected replacement costs by year using current replacement cost plus an annual inflation rate of 3.5%. All of the light duty vehicles are approaching the end of their useful lives of eight years and are assumed in the SRTP to be retired or replaced over the next several years.

Table 11.6 SCT/LINK Fleet Replacement Schedule

Vehicle # Model Yr Mileage Make/Model Body Repl Yr Repl Cost 12-01 2012 114,214 Ford E450 Starcraft/Allstar 2017 $84,735 13-01 2013 134,051 Ford E450 Starcraft/Allstar 2017 $84,735 13-02 2013 126,894 Ford E450 Starcraft/Allstar 2017 $84,735 13-03 2013 100,574 Ford E450 Starcraft/Allstar 2018 $87,701 13-04 2013 109,556 Ford E450 Starcraft/Allstar 2018 $87,701 13-05 2013 96,771 Ford E450 Starcraft/Allstar 2018 $87,701 13-06 2013 89,684 Ford E450 Starcraft/Allstar 2018 $87,701 13-07 2013 77,940 Ford E450 Starcraft/Allstar 2019 $90,771 13-08 2013 83,253 Ford E450 Starcraft/Allstar 2019 $90,771 13-09 2013 104,234 Ford E450 Starcraft/Allstar 2019 $90,771 13-10 2013 96,517 Ford E450 Starcraft/Allstar 2019 $90,771 14-01 2014 89,750 Ford E450 Starcraft/Allstar 2020 $93,948 14-02 2014 101,701 Ford E450 Starcraft/Allstar 2020 $93,948 16-01 2016 7,126 Ford E450 Starcraft/Allstar (Class C) 2021 $97,236 16-02 2016 4,397 Ford E450 Starcraft/Allstar (Class C) 2021 $97,236 16-03 2016 4,476 Ford E450 Starcraft/Allstar (Class C) 2021 $97,236

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 87

Facilities and Equipment The SRTP includes a new $3.8 million, shared transit facility between the City of Galt and SCT/LINK. In June 2015, the City of Galt completed a Request for Proposals (RFP) process for Phase I: Feasibility/Site Layout and Phase II: Design and Environmental Services for a SCT/LINK Fueling and Maintenance Facility.

This RFP was largely based on an analysis of the potential for a new facility completed by James E. Brown and Associates in early 2015. The analysis recommended an initial facility of 48,140 square feet for the current operation and an eventual expansion to 71,402 square feet during the 25-year planning horizon.

The RFP made it clear that the Fuel and Maintenance Facility project is for the joint use of SCT/LINK and the City of Galt. An overview of the project purpose and description from the RFP states:

The City of Galt and South County Transit want to design and construct a joint use transit and Public Works operations, maintenance and fueling facility on 3.3 acres owned by Galt at the corner of Elm Avenue / Amador / UPRR tracks. 1.3 acres of the site is currently functioning as the City’s corporation yard; the 2.0 acres immediately south of the corporation yard is undeveloped. It is presumed that the existing fueling, office and storage facilities at the site will be removed and replaced with the new facility.

While not included in the SRTP Financial Model, the Chief Financial Officer for Storer Transit Systems shared information that the lease payments for the current facility are $63,960 annually. With the new facility, the current facility will not be needed and these operating costs in the contract may be reduced.

Revenues Sacramento County relies on a number of funding sources to pay for capital and operations expenses. Table 11.7 summarizes the revenues anticipated to support the operating and capital expenditures included in the SRTP. Descriptions of each funding source follow.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 88

Table 11.7 Revenues Supporting Operating and Capital Expenses SOUTH & EAST COUNTY 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Fare Revenues $227,169 $227,169 $227,169 $227,169 $227,169 FTA 5311 Non-urbanized Area Formula- Sac County $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $340,000 TDA- Sac County $1,150,338 $1,150,000 $1,150,000 $1,150,000 $1,150,000 TDA- Galt $914,320 $915,000 $915,000 $915,000 $915,000 STA- Sac County $126,015 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 STA- Galt $100,160 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 State Proposition 1B $3,347,585 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Revenues $6,140,587 $2,792,169 $2,792,169 $2,792,169 $2,792,169

Fare Revenues South County collects a little over $200,000 annually in fare revenues for all of its operations. The SRTP assumes this funding source will remain stable over the course of the next five years along with total service and ridership. Table 11.8 summarizes the ridership and average fare assumptions utilized for the SRTP based on the 2016 Triennial Performance Audit for Sacramento County.

Table 11.8 Fare Revenue Assumptions

Average Fare Total Annual Total Annual per Passenger Passengers Fare Revenues SOUTH COUNTY Delta Route $1.52 4,200 $6,384 Highway 99 Express $1.67 37,300 $62,291 Galt-Sacramento Commuter Express $3.94 17,200 $67,768 Dial-a-Ride $1.63 46,800 $76,284 EAST COUNTY Sacramento Express $2.49 5,800 $14,442 Total South & East Counties 111,300 $227,169

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 89

Transportation Development Act The primary source of funding for SCT/LINK is Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds. The Transportation Development Act (TDA) is a state-collected local sales tax. For many years it has been a mainstay of funding for transit programs in California. The TDA provides two major sources of funding for public transportation: the Local Transportation Fund (LTF), which has been in existence since 1972, and the State Transit Assistance (STA) fund, which was instituted in 1980.

Both LTF and STA revenues are available for operating transit services if a 10% farebox recovery ratio is met in non-urbanized areas and 20% in urban areas. However, the state allows all of the operators in Sacramento County to combine their fares and operating costs to calculate a countywide farebox recovery ratio. LTF moneys must be spent for transit and paratransit purposes, unless a finding is made as part of the Unmet Transit Needs process (discussed in Chapter 8) that no unmet transit needs exist that are reasonable to meet. In that case, remaining funds may be spent on roadway construction and maintenance purposes.

TDA funds are allocated separately to Sacramento County and to the City of Galt. Currently, all of the LTF funds allocated to the City of Galt and County of Sacramento, after distributions to Sacramento Regional Transit, are claimed for Sacramento County Transit.

The Financial Plan combines these allocated funds (Local Transportation Funds and State Transit Assistance Funds of both Sacramento County and the City of Galt) and applies them to transit needs without regard to geography of the transit services. These funds are first used to meet any deficit between operating expenses and operating revenues. The remaining TDA funds are used for capital expenses and any proposed increases in transit services.

PTMISEA Funds The Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) was approved as Proposition 1B on the November 2006 ballot as part of the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act. A total of $3.6 billion is designated for allocation over a 10-year period through FY 2016/17 for public transportation projects. The $3.6 billion is to be distributed by formula based on population or farebox revenue to transit operators for capital projects.

Each year, PTMISEA funds are appropriated in the state budget to the State Controller’s Office (SCO) for allocation to eligible agencies, with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Mass Transportation as the administering agency. The SCO identifies and develops the list of eligible regional and local project sponsors and the amount each is eligible to receive, based on calculations outlined in SB 88, Statutes of 2007.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 90

PTMISEA funds are allocated as local and regional funding. SACOG is the primary project sponsor for SCO regional funding. SACOG issues calls for projects for these SCO regional funds and awards the funds to transit capital projects using established evaluation criteria. One of the evaluation criteria is regional equity for eligible transit agencies in the four-county area (Placer and El Dorado County administer their own funds). The selected transit capital projects are recommended by SACOG to Caltrans Division of Mass Transportation and their staff will recommend them for funding based on bond sales. When a capital project is partially or fully funded, SACOG receives a fund transfer from SCO. SACOG enters into a subrecipient funding agreement with the project sponsor, who is responsible for implementing the project based on the schedule. The sub-recipient then submits invoices for reimbursement to SACOG. SACOG reviews the documentation and approves the invoices for payment.

PTMISEA funds can only be used for transit capital projects. These include such projects as the following:

. Rolling stock, to purchase, replace or rehabilitate transit vehicles, such as buses, vans, paratransit vehicles, and rail transit vehicles.

. Purchase of equipment (such as bus engines, computer systems, and signage) or other projects for rehabilitation, operation, modernization, or safety.

. Capital service enhancement or expansion, such as modernization of bus shelters, transit centers, and operation and maintenance facilities, for design and/or construction phases.

South County Transit is expecting to use PTMISEA funds to pay for the new fueling facility. Any completed or partially completed project must be usable by the public when the PTMISEA funds allocated to the project are expended.

FTA 5311 Formula Grants for Rural Areas The Formula Grants for Rural Areas program provides support for planning, capital, operating, job access and reverse commute projects, and the acquisition of public transportation services to transit operators serving rural areas with populations of less than 50,000, where many residents often rely on public transit to reach their destinations. Sacramento County receives approximately $275,000 annually in 5311 funds.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 91

Revenues versus Expenditures The SRTP forecasts that there are sufficient revenues over the next five years to cover expenses for existing Sacramento County’s South and East County services, and that an ongoing surplus is likely given current funding and service levels.

Table 11.9 shows projected year-over-year annual expenditures compared to revenues for the SRTP period. The purpose of the SRTP is not to provide a detailed accounting of the financial state of Sacramento County Transit, but to provide a fiscally-constrained financial plan for covering planned services. The SRTP is based on a status quo scenario, which projects that current year-over-year revenues can more than cover the cost of existing services.

Table 11.9 Revenues vs. Expenditures, FY 2016-2021 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Expenditures $6,208,463 $2,559,967 $2,633,524 $2,522,407 $2,693,404 Revenues $6,140,587 $2,792,169 $2,792,169 $2,792,169 $2,792,169 Annual Balance ($67,876) $232,202 $158,645 $269,762 $98,765 Cumulative Balance $1,932,124 $2,164,326 $2,322,971 $2,592,733 $2,691,498

The County is starting with unclaimed LTF funds from FY 2015/16 and FY 2016/17, which is reflected in the cumulative balances. Under the existing funding structure and assuming funding programs remain stable over the next five years, the SRTP projects a roughly $2.7 million surplus by 2021. As the current and additional estimated surplus of unclaimed LTF is not projected to be needed to maintain existing service levels and a state of good repair of capital assets, these additional funds could be used towards recommendations included in the following service plan.

Service Plan

This Service Plan recommends at minimum maintaining the existing South and East County services at current levels for FY 2016/17-FY 2020/21. The following is a summary of additional recommendations from chapters throughout the plan.

Routes

Highway 99 Express Service As discussed in Chapter 4, staff should assess:

1) Additional ways to improve on-time performance of the current service. 2) Stops where riders would like to leave their bikes rather than taking them on the bus. Staff should then assess opportunities for providing safe bike storage where it would encourage more biking to connect with the bus.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 92

3) Use of the Methodist Hospital stop. If usage continues to be low, consider whether to keep the stop or include it only upon advance request, similar to the Elk Grove stop.

As noted in Chapter 2, City and County staff should engage in early planning for the Eastview Specific Plan area and Liberty Ranch development to assess needs for Highway 99 Express stops and related infrastructure that would serve those developments as they come on line.

Delta Route Continue to market lifeline service of Delta Route and monitor ongoing performance.

Galt-Sacramento Commuter Express County and Storer staff should continue to monitor performance, and if buses near capacity, conduct further analysis and surveying to assess demand for adding schedules and/or a third bus to the Commuter Express.

Dial-a-Ride Staff should address increasing no-shows: • Identify riders with a continuing pattern of no shows. • Assess whether to maintain or lengthen the window for ride cancellations. • Publicize and encourage use of the 24-hour phone cancellation service. • Educate frequent no shows (or their parents, if K-12 students) on the impacts to Dial-a- Ride service and on-time performance of not cancelling on time. • For non-K-12 riders who continue as frequent no shows, begin to issue warnings and then enforce the no-show policy. • For K-12 riders, adopt policies that could better motivate parents to cancel on time.

Staff should address potential revisions to Dial-a-Ride services by assessing whether to: • Continue to offer Saturday service during the early morning and evening windows when usage has been extremely low. • Add a run to the Medical Tripper service on Thursdays and/or Fridays to accommodate longer visits and later appointment times.

As noted in Chapter 2, staff should also work with City of Galt staff and the Dry Creek Oaks developer to determine any planned transportation services for this age-restricted development and potential impacts/demands for Dial-a-Ride service.

Amador Transit Sacramento Express Maintain partnership with Amador Transit on Route 1 Sacramento Express, increase marketing, and monitor ongoing performance.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 93

Additional Service Enhancements for Consideration There are several additional service enhancements recommended for consideration over the life of the SRTP: • A pilot test of limited Saturday service on the Highway 99 Express between Galt and Sacramento, as discussed in Chapter 4. • A pilot test of limited Sunday Dial-a-Ride service in Galt, as discussed in Chapter 7.

SCT/LINK Contract Sacramento County’s current contract with Storer Transit Systems began March 1, 2013 and ends February 28, 2018. Two one-year extensions, and month-to-month extensions up to three months, are permitted under the contract, with a maximum contract period through May 30, 2020. Decisions on opting for permitted extensions and the issuance of a new RFP for services will need to be undertaken during the timeframe of this SRTP.

Organizational Practices The following address audit recommendations discussed in Chapter 9.

Staffing Increasing County transit program staffing by one position is recommended. With the projected surplus, sufficient resources are available to support another position. Additional staffing will provide increased ability to support contract and operations oversight, service marketing, assessment and planning of service enhancements, service monitoring, and financial and operational reporting.

Performance Standards and Monitoring Performance monitoring should be improved by: • Considering adoption of key performance standards/objectives that operationalize contract standards. • Developing a monthly reporting format with expanded key indicators, including on-time measures by route.

Fares Once the Connect Card has been implemented, County staff should assess: • Proposing any fare increases and on what schedule. Staff should weigh availability of surplus funds, farebox recovery rates, and potential impacts on ridership as part of the analysis.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 94

• Phasing out other fare media such as paper tickets, weighing the degree to which riders have the ability and resources to convert to the Connect Card as an ongoing form of payment.

Marketing As discussed in Chapter 10, County staff should develop and implement a marketing plan for SCT/LINK and East County services, including Connect Card implementation outreach, improvements to websites and brochures, and expanded community-based marketing efforts, targeted to market segments for the different services. The plan should include a budget, timetable, and staffing plan.

Implementation Plan

Fiscal Year 2016-17 • Update/extend current agreement with City of Galt for SCT/LINK cost-sharing prior to its expiration in April 2017 (anticipated in March 2017 for period through 2020). • Develop a monthly reporting format for use starting in FY 2017-18. • Continue with Connect Card implementation, conduct advance rider marketing and outreach as needed. • Begin addressing Dial-a-Ride no shows. Assess cancellation window, identify and begin outreach to regular no-shows. • Secure approval for additional staff position, begin recruitment process • Coordinate with City and Dry Creek Oaks developer to assess potential transportation services and demand. • Continue to monitor Saturday usage of early morning/evening windows on Dial-a-Ride. • Work with drivers to count Methodist Hospital stop use on all Highway 99 Express runs.

Fiscal Year 2017-18 • Assess whether to exercise first option for one-year contract extension with Storer to begin on March 1, 2018. • Develop three-year marketing plan and begin implementation. • Assess potential increased demand for students to reach Delta College-Estrellita High School satellite program to begin in August 2017. • Assess Highway 99 service improvements to increase on-time performance. • Assess Methodist Hospital as a stop to discontinue or serve only upon advance request. • Undertake additional Dial-a-Ride no-show education with parents/students; enforce no- show policies with non-student riders. • Based on continued monitoring, assess whether to continue offering Saturday early morning and/or early evening service hours on Dial-a-Ride.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 95

• Assess feasibility and demand for an additional morning and/or afternoon run on the Medical Tripper service on Thursdays and/or Fridays.

Fiscal Year 2018-19 • If first extension option was exercised, assess whether to exercise second option for one-year contract extension with Storer to begin on March 1, 2019. • Continue expanded marketing of services based on marketing plan. • Continue to implement bus stop improvement program. • Assess potential fare increase and phasing. • Monitor usage to assess conversion of riders to Connect Card for fare payment.

Ongoing • Pursue procurements for vehicles requiring replacement. Partner on joint procurements where possible to reduce vehicle costs. • Coordinate with City and project staff on advance planning for transit access and related infrastructure needs for the Eastview Specific Plan/Liberty Ranch area. • Assess feasibility, demand, and resource availability for expanded services, including additional schedule(s) or third bus for Galt-Sacramento Commuter Express; pilot test of limited Sunday Dial-a-Ride service in Galt; limited Saturday service on the Highway 99 Express between Galt and Sacramento. • Monitor Delta College plans for any new satellite/high school programs in Galt for transit implications; engage in coordination efforts if discussions resume on the North County satellite campus. • Update agreements as needed with City of Galt and Amador Transit.

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 96

APPENDIX A—STORER CONTRACT PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 97

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 98

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 99

Sacramento County Short Range Transit Plan Page 100

APPENDIX B—SAMPLE MONTHLY REPORTS FROM RT & PARATRANSIT, INC.

July 2014 FY 2015 - Key Performance Report

Management Notes:  The information in this report is based on the FY 2015 Operating Budget adopted by the Board on June 23, 2014. The Budget column represents the modified budget compared to straight-line budget used in previous budget to actual monthly reports. Budget modifications are based on seasonal trends and scheduled hire dates for new positions.  RT’s farebox recovery ratio in the month of July was 20.2 percent and year-to date it is 20.2 percent. It has decreased by 2.5 percent compared to July 2013 and decreased by 2.5 percent year-to-date. In relation to the District’s established goal for FY 2015, the RT’s farebox recovery ratio is 0.3 percent above the established year- to-date goal. For the month of July, fare revenue was $2.3 million and above budget by $54 thousand.

 Systemwide ridership for the month of July compared to the same period last year increased by 2.7 percent, rail ridership increased 2.6 percent and combined bus ridership increased 2.9 percent. Year-to-date, systemwide ridership compared to the same period last year increased by 2.7 percent, rail ridership increased 2.6 percent and combined bus ridership increased 2.9 percent. In relation to the District’s established year-to-date ridership goals for FY 2014, systemwide ridership was 1.7 percent below the established goal, rail ridership was 3.0 percent below the goal, and combined bus ridership was 0.4 percent below the goal.

 In July, Labor cost exceeded the budget by $310 thousand or 3.9%. The main reason is capital labor recovery trending under budget by $183 thousand due to lower than budgeted allocation of labor cost to capital projects. In addition, Fringe benefits are trending $73 thousand over budget due to medical and sick leave/vacation accrual cost trending over budget. In FY 2015, RT budgeted district-wide vacancy rate at 6.0%. In July, RT achieved 5.7% vacancy rate. Lower than budgeted vacancy rate contributed to Labor cost to be over budget as well.  Year-to-date, RT’s cost per passenger for bus service was over the District’s goal at $6.73, and cost per passenger for rail service was over the District’s goal at $4.62.

 Year-to-date, RT’s other cost factors (cost per hour, cost per mile) are under the District’s budgeted levels for CBS and rail, and over the budgeted level for bus cost per revenue mile and cost per revenue hour..

 Year-to-date, RT’s passengers per revenue hour is below the District’s goal by 6.3 percent for rail, by 2.6 percent for bus and 0.6 percent for CBS.  RT monitors the overall performance of the fleet to evaluate potential failure trends. In the month of July, combined bus service was reported at 11,436 miles between service calls, and rail service was reported at 13,609 miles between service calls.  Year-to-date, RT’s on-time performance for bus service is at 81.9 percent which is 1.9 percent above the District’s goal. On-time departures for rail service are at 99.3 percent, above the District’s goal by 2.3 percent. Completed trips for bus, CBS and rail are 0.09%, 0.46% and 0.08% above the District’s goal respectively.  The District’s security statistics from RT’s Police Services indicate a passenger inspection rate of 17.01 percent for the month of July. In the month of May 2014, Security Guards began inspecting passengers for fares at light rail stations. Most of the inspections (56.0%) were performed by Police Officers. Transit Officers performed 28.6% of all inspections, and Security Guards performed 15.4% of all inspections.

 The District’s security statistics from RT’s Police Services indicate a total of 29 reported crimes for the month of July. FY 2015 year-to-date trend for crimes per 1,000 passengers of 0.015 is slightly higher than last year trend of 0.010 crimes per 1,000 riders. In the month of July, RT’s Customer Advocacy department recorded 10 security related customer reports, which is three more reports than in June of 2014.

 RT monitors factors that July influence operator absenteeism such as high levels of unscheduled operator overtime resulting from unfilled operator vacancies. In the month of July, the District had 22.14 scheduled work days with all RT recording a 8.18 percent rate of absenteeism equal to 1.81 unscheduled absentee days. Staff continues to monitor Transit Officers absenteeism. In July, Transit Officers missed 15.40% of scheduled work days due to unscheduled absences.

I:\FI\Vital Stats Report\KPR\FY 2015 KPR\01 (July 2014)\FY 2015 Key Performance Report - July 2014.doc 08/19/2014 1:58:19 PM Page 1 of 10 Operating Budget Net results for the month of July 2014 indicate a $62 thousand negative variance to the District’s FY 2015 Operating Budget. In July, operating costs were over budget by $122 thousand and revenues were above budget by $60 thousand.

In thousands July 2014 FY 2015 Year-to-Date Categories Actual Budget Variance Actual Budget Variance

Income Fare Revenue $ 2,280 $ 2,226 $ 54 $ 2,280 $ 2,226 $ 54 Contracted Services 473 463 10 473 463 10 Other Income 256 260 (4) 256 260 (4) State & Local Revenue 6,433 6,433 - 6,433 6,433 - Federal Revenue 2,514 2,514 - 2,514 2,514 -

Total 11,956 11,896 60 11,956 11,896 60

Expenses Labor/Fringes 8,146 7,836 (310) 8,146 7,836 (310) Services 2,057 2,154 97 2,057 2,154 97 Supplies 726 821 95 726 821 95 Utilities 568 566 (2) 568 566 (2) Insurance/Liability 722 717 (5) 722 717 (5) Other Expenses 162 165 3 162 165 3

Total $ 12,381 $ 12,259 $ (122) $ 12,381 $ 12,259 $ (122) ` Net Operating Surplus (Deficit) (425) (363) (62) (425) (363) (62)

35 Fare Recovery Ratio

30 Compared to July 2013, the fare recovery ratio for July 2014 decreased by 2.5 25 percent. 20 JULY YTD YTD VARIANCE FY2015 GOAL 15 Total Fare 20.2% 20.2% 0.3% Recovery 19.9% 10 July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June FY2014 Total Fare 22.7% 22.7% 23.2% -0.5% FY 2014 FY 2015 Recovery Variance -2.5% -2.5% -3.3%

FARE AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL RECOVERY 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 Total 23.0% 22.6% 22.4% 22.0% 22.2% 20.7% 24.2% 21.1% 20.3% 22.3% 21.0% 20.2% Light Rail 27.6% 24.9% 26.2% 27.2% 26.6% 24.4% 26.4% 25.3% 25.3% 26.3% 24.3% 24.8% Combined 19.7% 20.8% 19.8% 18.7% 19.1% 18.1% 22.5% 18.3% 17.2% 19.6% 18.5% 17.0% Bus Bus 20.3% 21.5% 20.5% 19.3% 19.7% 18.8% 23.2% 18.9% 17.8% 20.3% 19.1% 17.6% CBS 8.6% 8.1% 7.5% 7.3% 7.5% 7.0% 9.2% 6.8% 6.6% 7.3% 7.9% 7.6%

Page 2 of 10 Total Ridership Total Ridership 3,000,000 Compared to July 2013, total 2,700,000 combined bus and rail ridership for 2,400,000 July 2014 increased by 2.7 percent. JULY YTD 2,100,000 FY2015 1,800,000 Total Ridership 1,993,814 1,993,814

1,500,000 FY2014 July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Total Ridership 1,940,656 1,940,656 District Goal for July 2014 Total Ridership: 2,029,000 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2014 Goal Variance 2.7% 2.7%

AUG 13 SEP 13 OCT 13 NOV 13 DEC 13 JAN 14 FEB 14 MAR 14 APR 14 MAY 14 JUN 14 JUL 14 2,222,005 2,421,366 2,636,076 2,249,988 2,271,830 2,365,564 2,240,350 2,515,478 2,444.106 2,463,319 2,094,355 1,993,814

Total Rail Ridership Light Rail Ridership 1,400,000 Compared to July 2013, total rail 1,200,000 ridership for July 2014 increased by

1,000,000 2.6 percent. JULY YTD 800,000 FY2015 Rail Ridership 1,000,180 1,000,180 600,000 FY2014 July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Rail Ridership 974,860 974,860 District Goal for July 2014 Rail Ridership: 1,031,000 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2015 Goal Variance 2.6% 2.6%

AUG 13 SEP 13 OCT 13 NOV 13 DEC 13 JAN 14 FEB 14 MAR 14 APR 14 MAY 14 JUN 14 JUL 14 1,114,880 1,166,600 1,248,650 1,079,000 1,108,210 1,138,810 1,042,400 1,225,750 1,169,900 1,177,730 1,052,360 1,000,180

Page 3 of 10 Combined Bus Ridership Total Combined Bus Ridership 1,500,000 Compared to July 2013, total bus ridership for July 2014 increased by 2.9 1,200,000 percent. FY2015 900,000 JULY YTD Combined Bus Ridership 993,634 993,634 600,000 FY2014 July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Combined Bus 965,796 965,796 District Goal for July 2014 Combined Bus Ridership: 998,000 Ridership FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2015 Goal Variance 2.9% 2.9%

Bus Ridership CBS Ridership 31,000 1,300,000 26,000 1,100,000 21,000 900,000 16,000 700,000 11,000 500,000 6,000 300,000 1,000 July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June District Goal for July 2014 Bus Ridership: 973,800 District Goal for July 2014 CBS Ridership: 24,200 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2014 FY 2015

AUG 13 SEP 13 OCT 13 NOV 13 DEC 13 JAN 14 FEB 14 MAR 14 APR 14 MAY 14 JUN 14 JUL 14 Combined Bus 1,107,125 1,254,766 1,387,426 1,170,988 1,163,620 1,226,754 1,197,950 1,289,728 1,274,206 1,285,589 1,041,995 993,634 Bus 1,081,677 1,229,404 1,358,117 1,146,716 1,139,836 1,200,557 1,173,526 1,264,347 1,248,670 1,259,754 1,017,671 968,692 CBS 25,448 25,362 29,309 24,272 23,784 26,197 24,424 25,381 25,536 25,835 24,324 24,942

Page 4 of 10 Rolling Year Ridership Totals

27,918,249 Total Ridership 27,265,458

15,000,000 17,000,000 19,000,000 21,000,000 23,000,000 25,000,000 27,000,000 29,000,000

August 2012 - July 2013 August 2013 - July 2014

14,393,779 Bus 13,542,668

13,524,470 Rail 13,722,790

10,000,000 10,500,000 11,000,000 11,500,000 12,000,000 12,500,000 13,000,000 13,500,000 14,000,000 14,500,000

August 2012 - July 2013 August 2013 - July 2014

AUGUST 2013 – JULY 2014 AUGUST 2013 – JULY 2014 AUGUST 2013 – JULY 2014 Total Ridership Combined Bus Ridership Rail Ridership 27,918,249 14,393,779 13,524,470 AUGUST 2012 – JULY 2013 AUGUST 2012 – JULY 2013 AUGUST 2012 – JULY 2013 Total Ridership Combined Bus Ridership Rail Ridership 27,265,458 13,542,668 13,722,790 Change 652,791 851,111 -198,320

Variance 2.39% 6.28% -1.45% Aug-13 Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 Jul-14 Total Ridership 2,222,005 2,421,366 2,636,076 2,249,988 2,271,830 2,365,564 2,240,350 2,515,478 2,444,106 2,463,319 2,094,355 1,993,814 Light Rail Ridership 1,114,880 1,166,600 1,248,650 1,079,000 1,108,210 1,138,810 1,042,400 1,225,750 1,169,900 1,177,730 1,052,360 1,000,180 Bus Ridership 1,107,125 1,254,766 1,387,426 1,170,988 1,163,620 1,226,754 1,197,950 1,289,728 1,274,206 1,285,589 1,041,995 993,634 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13 Mar-13 Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13 Total Ridership 2,315,662 2,279,151 2,695,833 2,322,475 2,115,388 2,299,079 2,250,886 2,337,151 2,391,396 2,409,951 1,907,830 1,940,656 Light Rail Ridership 1,196,720 1,089,200 1,330,580 1,199,710 1,087,100 1,199,280 1,120,400 1,177,360 1,161,200 1,189,880 996,500 974,860 Bus Ridership 1,118,942 1,189,951 1,365,253 1,122,710 1,028,288 1,099,799 1,130,486 1,159,791 1,230,196 1,220,071 911,330 965,796

Page 5 of 10 Light Rail Cost Per Passenger Combined Bus Cost Per Passenger Cost Per Passenger

$4.75 $6.75 YTD $4.00 $6.00 FY2015 YTD Goal Variance $3.25 $5.25 Light Rail $4.62 $4.50 -2.6% $2.50 $4.50 Combined $1.75 $3.75 Bus $6.73 $6.54 -2.9% $1.00 $3.00 Bus July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun $6.51 $6.32 -3.0% FY 2014 RAIL FY 2015 RAIL FY 2014 BUS FY 2015 BUS CBS $15.06 $15.69 4.0%

Cost Per Passenger AUG 13 SEP 13 OCT 13 NOV 13 DEC 13 JAN 14 FEB 14 MAR 14 APR 14 MAY 14 JUN 14 JUL 14 Light Rail $3.99 $4.12 $3.60 $3.78 $3.86 $4.09 $4.39 $3.54 $3.96 $3.84 $4.90 $4.62 Combined Bus $5.59 $4.93 $4.78 $5.50 $5.37 $5.56 $5.15 $4.91 $5.82 $5.16 $6.44 $6.73 Bus $5.42 $4.77 $4.61 $5.32 $5.20 $5.37 $5.00 $4.74 $5.63 $4.99 $6.23 $6.51 CBS $12.81 $12.69 $12.53 $13.99 $13.61 $14.30 $12.60 $13.10 $15.18 $13.78 $15.11 $15.06

Light Rail Cost Per Revenue Vehicle Hour Combined Bus Cost Per Revenue Vehicle Hour Cost Per Revenue $325 $170 Vehicle Hour $300 $160 $275 $150 YTD $250 $140 FY2015 YTD Goal Variance $225 $130 $200 $120 Light Rail $244.70 $254.87 4.0% $175 $110 Combined $150 $100 $141.43 $141.22 -0.1% July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Bus July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Bus FY 2014 RAIL FY 2015 RAIL FY 2014 BUS FY 2015 BUS $140.23 $139.63 -0.4% CBS $165.23 $173.16 4.6% Cost Per Revenue AUG 13* SEP 13 OCT 13 NOV 13 DEC 13 JAN 14 FEB 14 MAR 14 APR 14 MAY 14 JUN 14 JUL 14 Vehicle Hour Light Rail $229.36 $265.36 $226.40 $224.56 $226.56 $252.69 $268.97 $238.08 $248.23 $245.18 $282.62 $244.70 Combined Bus $131.04 $140.30 $135.70 $145.30 $135.95 $147.29 $142.24 $135.86 $157.11 $142.65 $147.22 $141.43 Bus $130.59 $139.72 $134.91 $144.55 $135.47 $146.23 $141.93 $135.04 $156.43 $141.57 $146.10 $140.23 CBS $139.76 $151.78 $150.55 $160.10 $145.37 $168.22 $148.39 $152.37 $170.59 $164.88 $169.39 $165.23

* August 2013 Light Rail cost per hour is revised to reflect when cars are added or removed from trains during day, which impacts revenue vehicle hours calculation.

Page 6 of 10 Cost Per Passenger Per Passenger Per Revenue Mile Revenue Mile Revenue Hour FY2015 YTD YTD Goal Variance YTD YTD Goal Variance YTD YTD Goal Variance Light Rail $13.55 $14.12 4.0% 2.93 3.14 -6.4% 52.99 56.58 -6.3% Bus $12.78 $12.73 -0.4% 1.96 2.01 -2.6% 21.53 22.10 -2.6% CBS $16.26 $17.02 4.5% 1.08 1.09 -0.5% 10.97 11.04 -0.6%

Bus Light Rail On – Time Performance On – Time Departures YTD Goal Variance YTD Goal Variance FY2015 81.9% 80.0% 1.9% FY2015 99.3% 97.0% 2.3% Completed Trips FY2015 YTD Goal Variance Light Rail 99.88% 99.80% 0.08% Bus 99.89% 99.80% 0.09% CBS 99.86% 99.40% 0.46%

Mean Distance Between Service Calls (miles)

FY2015 YTD Goal Variance Light Rail Mean Distance Between Service Calls 13,609 12,000 13.4% Combined Bus Mean Distance Between Service Calls 11,436 9,500 20.4%

AUG 13 SEP 13 OCT 13 NOV 13 DEC 13 JAN 14 FEB 14 MAR 14 APR 14 MAY 14 JUN 14 JUL 14

Light Rail 9,862 11,764 14,970 15,074 14,379 11,624 10,430 15,197 10,316 12,197 11,387 13,609

Combined Bus 12,126 11,094 10,318 11,778 9,784 12,291 9,392 10,765 9.958 11,481 10,512 11,436

Page 7 of 10 JULY JULY 2014 2013 FY 14 YTD FY 15 YTD Light Rail Fare Evasion % of Passengers Inspected 17.01% 12.52% 12.52% 17.01% * In May 2014, Security guards began inspecting Passengers Cited without Proper Fare 2,182 2,257 2,257 2,182 passengers for fares at light rail stations. Data from SRTD Transit Officers % of Fare Evasion Fare Evasion Citations/Passengers Inspected 1.28% 1.85% 1.85% 1.28% AUG 13 SEP 13 OCT 13 NOV 13 DEC 13 JAN 14 FEB 14 MAR 14 APR 14 MAY 14 * JUN 14 JUL 14 % of Passengers 11.40% 11.37% 8.42% 7.48% 7.54% 6.54% 9.79% 8.80% 11.90% 17.51% 12.71% 17.01% Inspected Passengers Cited 2,252 1,815 2,009 2,023 1,863 2,411 1,939 1,724 1,819 1,812 1,657 2.182 without Proper Fare % of Fare Evasion 1.77% 1.37% 1.91% 2.51% 2.23% 3.28% 1.90% 1.60% 1.31% 0.88% 1.24% 1.28%

System Crime* Statistics *System crime data based on RTPS reports and reports obtained in cooperation with surrounding law enforcement agencies that are felony and misdemeanor crimes and does not include citations for infractions. Examples of felony crime on RT system are assault, robbery, assault with a weapon, auto theft, false impersonation, felony vandalism, burglary, and misdemeanor crime examples are battery, petty theft, misdemeanor vandalism, trespassing. JULY 2014 JULY 2013 FY14 YTD FY15 YTD JULY YTD Crimes per Thousand Boarding Passengers .015 .010 .010 .015 FY2015 No. of Crimes/Total Ridership # of Reported Crimes 29 29 Prohibition Orders 1 1 1 1 FY2014 # of Reported Crimes 19 19 AUG 13 SEP 13 OCT 13 NOV 13 DEC 13 JAN 14 FEB 14 MAR 14 APR 14 MAY 14 JUN 14 JUL 14 # of Reported Crimes 21 22 25 25 26 35 18 22 21 16 19 29 Crimes per 1000 .009 .009 .009 .011 .011 .015 .008 .009 .009 .006 .009 .015 Boarding Passengers Prohibition Orders 4 4 2 0 0 0 2 5 5 2 2 1 Customer Advocacy Report JULY 2014 JULY 2013 FY14 YTD FY15 YTD JULY YTD FY2015 - # of Security # of Customer Contacts 534 535 535 534 Related Customer Reports 10 10 # of PSRs Passenger Service Reports processed from contacts 24 40 40 24 FY2014 - # of Security 7 7 % of Security Related Customer Contacts 1.87% 1.31% 1.31% 1.87% Related Customer Reports AUG 13 SEP 13 OCT 13 NOV 13 DEC 13 JAN 14 FEB 14 MAR 14 APR 14 MAY 14 JUN 14 JUL 14 # of Customer Contacts 567 543 571 492 462 575 499 537 493 499 467 534 # of PSRs 41 28 25 22 27 20 31 20 15 17 27 24 # of Security Related Customer Reports 10 7 10 10 6 11 10 12 8 8 8 10 % of Security Related Customer Contacts 1.76% 1.29% 1.75% 2.03% 1.30% 1.91% 2.00% 2.23% 1.62% 1.60% 1.71% 1.87%

Page 8 of 10 All RT Employee Unscheduled Absenteeism Employee Unscheduled Absenteeism 3.00 2.75 JULY 2014 YTD 2.50 FY 2015 2.25 2.00 # of Scheduled Work Days 22.14 days 22.14 days 1.75 1.50 1.25 1.00 0.75 July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June FY 2014 FY 2015 Unscheduled Absenteeism by Monthly Target JULY 2014 YTD Employee Group Percentage of Absenteeism Percentage of Absenteeism* Management & Confidential 0.66 days 0.66 days 0.66 days 2.98% 2.98% AEA 1.75 days 1.75 days 0.66 days 7.90% 7.90% IBEW 1245 1.76 days 1.76 days 1.00 days 7.95% 7.95% ATU – Transit Officer 3.41 days 3.41 days 3.32 days 15.40% 15.40% ATU – Clerical 2.03 days 2.03 days 1.00 days 9.17% 9.17% ATU – Bus & Rail Operators 2.14 days 2.14 days 1.66 days 9.67% 9.67% ATU 256 (All Groups) 2.17 days 2.17 days 1.88 days 9.80% 9.80% AFSCME – Supervisor 1.12 days 1.12 days 0.66 days 5.06% 5.06% AFSCME – Admin Technical 1.45 days 1.45 days 0.66 days 6.55% 6.55%

All RT 1.81 days 1.81 days 1.33 days 8.18% 8.18%

AUG 13 SEP 13 OCT 13 NOV 13 DEC 13 JAN 14 FEB 14 MAR 14 APR 14 MAY 14 JUN 14 JUL 14 Management & 1.22 0.79 1.05 0.79 1.02 0.78 0.68 0.92 0.94 0.81 1.05 0.66 Confidential AEA 1.15 1.82 1.75 1.03 1.06 1.02 0.79 1.30 0.90 1.20 1.06 1.75 IBEW 1245 1.81 1.66 1.86 1.58 2.05 2.10 1.96 2.29 1.63 1.61 1.76 1.76 ATU – Transit Officer 4.61 2.18 3.74 2.68 3.56 5.68 4.27 3.64 4.26 4.08 4.26 3.41 ATU – Clerical 2.21 2.43 2.17 2.13 1.40 1.94 2.03 ATU – Bus / Rail Operators 2.24 2.11 2.59 2.33 2.19 2.09 2.05 2.30 2.02 2.12 1.96 2.14 ATU 256 (All Groups) 2.26 2.13 2.66 2.39 2.28 2.18 2.12 2.33 2.07 2.13 2.02 2.17 AFSCME – Supervisor 0.93 0.80 1.45 1.01 0.90 0.85 0.76 0.80 1.00 1.09 0.86 1.12 AFSCME – Admin Techn. 0.60 0.63 1.70 1.42 1.18 1.17 1.41 0.86 1.10 0.74 0.90 1.45 All RT 1.83 1.71 2.16 1.86 1.90 1.83 1.76 1.95 1.69 1.71 1.69 1.81

Page 9 of 10 Key Performance Report

August 25, 2014 Mike Wiley, General Manager/CEO FY 2015 – Key Performance Report

July FY 2015  2.7 percent

Total Ridership 3,000,000

2,700,000

2,400,000 2,029,000 2,100,000 1,993,814 1,800,000 1,940,656 1,500,000 July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2014 Goal

*District Goal for July 2014 Total Ridership: 2,029,000 FY 2015 – Key Performance Report

1st Six Months JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Goal 2,029,000 2,247,000 2,610,000 2,741,000 2,288,000 2,432,000 FY 2015 1,993,814 FY 2014 1,940,656 2,222,005 2,421,366 2,636,076 2,249,988 2,271,830 Change 2.7% TOTAL RIDERSHIP 2nd Six Months JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN Goal 2,381,000 2,324,000 2,560,000 2,534,000 2,416,000 2,138,000 FY 2015 FY 2014 2,365,564 2,240,350 2,515,478 2,444,106 2,463,319 2,094,355 Change

YTD Goal 2,029,000 FY 2015 1,993,814 FY 2014 1,940,656 Change 2.7% FY 2015 – Key Performance Report

July FY 2015  2.6 percent

Total Rail Ridership 1,400,000

1,200,000 1,031,000 1,000,000 1,000,180 974,860 800,000

600,000 July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2015 Goal

*District Goal for July 2014 Rail Ridership: 1,031,000 Average Weekday Ridership at 8th & H LR Station (rolling 3 months average) – 432 total rider activity (45 on, 387 off) FY 2015 - Key Performance Report

1st Six Months JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Goal 1,031,000 1,147,000 1,277,000 1,344,000 1,120,000 1,192,000 FY 2015 1,000,180 FY 2014 974,860 1,114,880 1,166,600 1,248,650 1,079,000 1,108,210 Change 2.6% TOTAL RAIL RIDERSHIP 2nd Six Months JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN Goal 1,169,000 1,136,000 1,254,000 1,240,000 1,184,000 1,106,000 FY 2015 FY 2014 1,138,810 1,042,400 1,225,750 1,169,900 1,177,730 1,052,360 Change

YTD Goal 1,031,000 FY 2015 1,000,180 FY 2014 974,860 Change 2.6% FY 2015 – Key Performance Report

July FY 2015  2.9 percent

Total Combined Bus Ridership 1,500,000

1,200,000 998,000 993,634 900,000 965,796

600,000 July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2015 Goal

*District Goal for July 2014 Combined Bus Ridership: 998,000 FY 2015 - Key Performance Report

1st Six Months JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Goal 998,000 1,100,000 1,333,000 1,397,000 1,168,000 1,240,000 FY 2015 993,634 FY 2014 965,796 1,107,125 1,254,766 1,387,426 1,170,988 1,163,620 Change 2.9% TOTAL BUS RIDERSHIP 2nd Six Months JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN Goal 1,212,000 1,188,000 1,306,000 1,294,000 1,232,000 1,032,000 FY 2015 FY 2014 1,226,754 1,197,950 1,289,728 1,274,206 1,285,589 1,041,995 Change

YTD Goal 998,000 FY 2015 993,634 FY 2014 965,796 Change 2.9% FY 2015 – Key Performance Report R O L L I N G Y E A R August - July

27,918,249 Total Ridership  27,265,458 2.39 percent 15,000,000 17,000,000 19,000,000 21,000,000 23,000,000 25,000,000 27,000,000 29,000,000

August 2012 - July 2013 August 2013 - July 2014

14,393,779 Bus 13,542,668  6.28 percent

13,524,470 Rail -1.45 percent 13,722,790

10,000,000 10,500,000 11,000,000 11,500,000 12,000,000 12,500,000 13,000,000 13,500,000 14,000,000 14,500,000

August 2012 - July 2013 August 2013 - July 2014 FY 2015 - Key Performance Report

Fare Recovery Ratio JUL YTD Goal YTD

FY 2015 20.2% 19.9% 20.2% FY 2014 22.7% 23.2% 22.7% Variance -2.5% -3.3% -2.5%

JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015

TOTAL 20.2% Light 24.8% Rail

Bus 17.6%

CBS 7.6% FY 2015 - Key Performance Report

Cost Per Passenger Passenger Per Revenue Hour FY 2015 YTD YTD Variance FY 2015 YTD YTD Variance Goal Goal Light Rail $4.62 $4.50 -2.6% Light Rail 52.99 56.58 -6.3% Combined Bus $6.73 $6.54 -2.9% Bus 21.53 22.10 -2.6% Bus $6.51 $6.32 -3.0% CBS 10.97 11.04 -0.6% CBS $15.06 $15.69 4.0%

Mean Distance Between Service Calls (miles) FY 2015 YTD YTD Goal Variance Light Rail 13,609 12,000 13.4% Bus 11,436 9,500 20.4% FY 2015 - Key Performance Report

Light Rail Fare Evasion July YTD % of Passengers Inspected * 17.01% 17.01% Passengers Cited without Proper Fare 2,182 2,182 Data from SRTD Transit Officers % of Fare Evasion 1.28% 1.28% Fare Evasion Citations/Passengers Inspected

* Security guards began inspecting passengers at light rail stations in May 2014.

Customer Advocacy Report July YTD # of Customer Contacts 534 534 # of PSRs 24 24 Passenger Service Reports processed from contacts # of Security Related Customer Reports 10 10 % Security Related Customer Contacts 1.87% 1.87% FY 2015 - Key Performance Report

System Crime Statistics

FY 2015 FY 2014 FY 2014 FY 2015 July July YTD YTD 2014 2013

Reported Crimes 29 19 19 29 Data from RTPS Officers and Deputies Crimes per Thousand Boarding Passengers .015 .010 .010 .015 No. of Crimes/Total Ridership Prohibition Orders 1 1 1 1 FY 2015 - Key Performance Report

Employee Unscheduled Absenteeism

July 2014 YTD

# of Scheduled Work Days 22.14 22.14 Percentage of Absenteeism Unscheduled Absenteeism by Employee Group Monthly July YTD Target 2014 Management & Confidential 0.66 0.66 0.66 days 2.98% 2.98% AEA 1.75 1.75 0.66 days 7.90% 7.90% IBEW 1245 1.76 1.76 1.00 days 7.95% 7.95% ATU -Transit Officer * 3.41 3.41 3.32 days 15.40% 15.40% ATU - Clerical 2.03 2.03 1.00 days 9.17% 9.17% ATU - Bus & Rail Operators 2.14 2.14 1.66 days 9.67% 9.67% ATU 256 (All Groups) 2.17 2.17 1.88 days 9.80% 9.80% AFSCME – Supervisor 1.12 1.12 0.66 days 5.06% 5.06% AFSCME – Admin Technical 1.45 1.45 0.66 days 6.55% 6.55% All RT 1.81 1.81 1.33 days 8.18% 8.18% * See Management Notes 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

APPENDIX C—EXCERPT FROM MOORE & ASSOCIATES REPORT REGARDING STC/LINK MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE

SCT/LINK – MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT PLAN

3.3 MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE

Transit systems throughout the country are administered in myriad ways, some of which involve complex arrangements and responsibilities. Given many programs now serve regional populations, transit management structures have transitioned from simple models, such as a single entity providing service for a single community, to more intricate models that include regional cooperation. This section discusses some of the common governance models used to manage transit systems.

Existing SCT/Link Management Structure SCT/Link is administered by the County of Sacramento (County) and the City of Galt. The current agreement is specified in the “Agreement for South County Transit Link (SCT/Link) Sharing of Responsibilities and Costs.”

The service is funded using Federal, State, and local monies, allocated through the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) and the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG). Specifically, SCT/Link is funded by annual allocations from Transportation Development Act (TDA) funding consistent with TDA statutes18 as well as the Federal Transit Administration via its Section 5311 formula grant.

As the regional planning agency, SACOG also provides planning and technical assistance for SCT/Link. SACOG would likely continue its role in technical assistance and planning regardless of changes in program management structure.

As part of the current administration responsibilities, Sacramento County administers the operations contract, currently operated by Storer Transit Systems. In addition to transit operations, the contract includes responsibilities for dispatch and Dial-A-Ride (DAR) reservation services, which Storer provides from a leased facility.

Exhibit 3.3.1 Existing Management Structure Responsibilities Typical Operator Functions Responsible Entity General management and organization County Service planning SACOG Scheduling, dispatch, and operations Storer Personnel management and training Storer Administration County Marketing and public information County Maintenance Storer Contract and grant administration County

18 SCT/Link Management Improvement Plan Scope of Work (2012).

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 22 SCT/LINK – MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT PLAN

The day-to-day management of the SCT/Link service lies with Storer through the operations contract with the County. The agreement between the County and the City also identifies the County as the responsible entity for management and administration. Public information responsibilities are not explicitly discussed within the agreement. Additionally, the current agreement does not discuss specific staffing allocation. There are no arrangements or bylaws regarding a policy-making entity for the system or for the convening of regular coordination meetings.

This Plan examines the existing contract administration structure and compares it with alternative models. The purpose of this effort is to address potential inefficiencies as well as identify strengths, which will be included in proposed recommendations.

Alternative Management Structure Models Similar to the current structure, the models discussed here emphasize coordination of services at a regional level. The models merely explain the general characteristics of each structure, whereas in practice these should be specifically suited to each unique situation. Given this, the analysis included in this section covers the examples that are best suited for the specific needs of the SCT/Link program.

Joint Powers Authority A Joint Powers Authority (JPA) is the establishment of a legal entity by two or more public entities. The arrangement benefits the involved entities through the combination and sharing of resources, thereby cutting costs and reducing overlapping services. A JPA derives its statutory authority from California Government Code Section 6500, which authorizes two or more public entities by agreement to jointly exercise any power common to the contracting entities.

A JPA is authorized in its own name to:

 Make and enter into contracts;  Incur debts, liabilities, and obligations (provided that no debt, liability, or obligation of the authority is a debt, liability, or obligation of any member except as separately agreed);  Acquire, hold, construct, manage, maintain, sell or otherwise dispose of real and personal property by appropriate means;  Receive contributions and donations of property, funds, services, and other forms of assistance from any source;  Apply for, accept, receive and disburse grants, loans and other aids from any agency of the US or the State of California;  Sue and be sued in its own name; and  Employ agents and employees.19

The current management structure operates similarly to a JPA, although the cooperating agencies have yet to formally establish a separate, legally independent entity. For example, the current agreement

19 Joint Powers Agreement creating the Transbay Joint Powers Authority (2001).

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 23 SCT/LINK – MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT PLAN codifies formal cost-sharing (which is not necessarily included in JPA agreements). Other similarities between the current structure and a JPA include regional coordination for area-wide issues, division of staff workload, and regional project identification and prioritization.

Another important JPA characteristic not included within the current agreement is the establishment of a representative board. A JPA is governed by a representative board made up of member entities; however, JPA staff is independent from member staff. Specific authority for appointing board members is traditionally provided to each member of the JPA20. The JPA agreement can specify voting and approval procedures for resolutions affecting the service, including the weighting of votes based on certain established criteria (i.e. population, cost-sharing, etc.).

Joint Powers Authority Benefits Major benefits for JPA formation include efficiency, regional coordination, flexibility and local control, and grant coordination.

Efficiency JPAs enhance efficiency by providing a mechanism for governments to join forces and coordinate on regional issues. By doing so, a JPA can consolidate personnel, expertise, equipment, and property of members.

Regional Coordination Today, many transit needs and issues cross jurisdictional boundaries. The development of a JPA can provide an additional forum for public and stakeholder involvement.

Flexibility and Local Control JPAs are relatively easy for governments to form, dissolve, join, or leave. Organization and management may be based on any agreed-upon structure, allowing government entities to include stipulations to retain certain local controls.

Grant Coordination Members can cooperate rather than compete for grant opportunities. Granting authorities tend to favor regional approaches over multiple unrelated projects21.

Joint Powers Authority Disadvantages In some instances, the flexibility of membership may also be a disadvantage. Member withdrawal can negatively impact the JPA, which may be impacted by member withdrawal based on changes in public support or political leaders. Assuming a JPA for SCT/Link would include at a minimum the County and City, this may not be a concern because cost-sharing and

20 Governments Working Together: A Citizen’s Guide to Joint Powers Agreements. California State Legislature, Senate Local Government Committee, 2007. 21 Governance Models for Regional Transit Coordination. The University of Kansas Transportation Center, 2010.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 24 SCT/LINK – MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT PLAN

other agreements are currently in place and there would be no reason to withdraw from a JPA to only return to the status quo.

Another typical disadvantage of a JPA is the potential for negative public perception. The public may see the JPA as another unnecessary level of bureaucracy in a region with similar organizations. Public outreach efforts would help to convey the value to residents.

Memoranda of Understanding Similar to a JPA, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is established via a document describing a bilateral or multilateral agreement between parties. It is a written statement of cooperation that usually defines roles and responsibilities for involved entities. It may also detail funding structure, cost- sharing, and/or communication procedures22. MOUs related to transit can list which services will be provided, including operation of services as well as supporting services such as regularly scheduled meetings, documents and reports, grant applications, etc. The current cost-sharing contract between the City of Galt and Sacramento County is an example of the MOU model.

Memoranda of Understanding Benefits These agreements are popular because they offer an approach to the challenge of regional coordination that still allows some degree of autonomy for members. MOUs can be tailored to the specific needs of each entity. When included in the agreement, clearly defined roles and responsibilities can reduce “turf” issues and protect involved parties from differing expectations23.

Memoranda of Understanding Disadvantages There are cost implications, such as administration costs, involved with the creation of MOUs. While two or more entities may in principle agree on a certain issue, the drafting of the instrument takes time and staff. The development of these agreements requires a certain degree of trust between the involved parties and establishment may require lengthy negotiations as to the terms and specifications included within the MOU. A MOU may also be general in terms and not necessarily address day-to-day operations and responsibilities.

Special District A special district is a separate local entity with its own governing body that is responsible for the delivery of public services to a particular area. These districts deliver specific services that taxpayers are willing to pay for, compared to city or county governments, which provide a variety of services.

22 Umbrella Memorandum of Understanding for Intergovernmental Cooperation Between the City of Bellevue and the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority for the East Link Project (2011). 23 A Guide to Memorandum of Understanding Negotiation and Development. Temple University, Institute on Aging, 1982.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 25 SCT/LINK – MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT PLAN

There are four distinguishing characteristics of special districts:

1. They are an official form of government; 2. They have governing boards; 3. They provide services and facilities; and 4. They have defined boundaries.

A majority of special districts are governed by principal act statutes, although some are created under specific conditions under a special act statute. Common examples include fire districts, irrigation districts, and mosquito abatement districts. Public transit is not a common type – as of 2008 there were only 15 special transit districts in California24.

Special District Benefits Special districts provide a mechanism for counties and cities to provide additional services to constituents if the public is willing to pay an additional, dedicated tax. It is a very efficient model because it establishes an entity that focuses on the provision of a specific service or program.

Special District Disadvantages Special districts require complicated procedures to create. Creation requires the approval of the Local Agency Formation Commission as well as voter approval. The structure of a special district, including election and appointment requirements, is set by state law, making these less flexible than other models.

It is often difficult to obtain public and partner buy-in. Special districts may be viewed as an example of fragmented government. The public would also be cautious of an additional authority with the same taxing powers as counties and cities. Special districts can inadvertently hinder regional planning by the creation of different governing boards.

Regional Transit Coordinating Council A Regional Transit Coordinating Council (RTCC) is a regional advisory board comprised of representatives from various levels of government. The primary difference between an RTCC and a JPA is that an RTCC Board serves as a guide to a pre-existing transit entity whereas a JPA is itself an individual entity25. The RTCC does not have policy-making ability and cannot create its own funding mechanisms. It also does not operate an individual transit system. The RTCC board can facilitate regional coordination, but funding and operations are left to the local agencies.

24 What’s So Special About Special Districts: A Citizen’s Guide to Special Districts in California. California State Legislature, Senate Local Committee, 2012. 25 Governance Models for Regional Transit Coordination. University of Kansas Transportation Center, 2010.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 26 SCT/LINK – MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT PLAN

Regional Transit Coordinating Council Benefits RTCCs are well-suited for coordinating throughout a large region with several transit entities and providers, including private not-for-profits. They are relatively simple to establish and do not require enabling legislation.

Regional Transit Coordinating Council Disadvantages These councils have little authority and serve more as a general recommendation body under the authority of another entity.

Regional Transit Authority As a fully state-enabled organization, the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) has the greatest authority to govern and operate a transit program of all management structure models. RTAs are representative authorities and can include a range of members, including the state, counties, cities, educational institutions, private transit providers, etc. RTA boards usually consist of member governmental units, although other stakeholders may be involved as ex-officio positions. RTAs can operate a transit system as well as contract operations to other parties. Other roles of the RTA, in addition to service, may include planning, funding, administration, and coordination26.

Regional Transit Authority Benefits An RTA has the ability to generate its own, dedicated revenue via taxes and bonds. RTAs also have the authority to develop their own policies and procedures. Some share the same eminent domain rights as cities and counties.

Regional Transit Authority Disadvantages Disadvantages of the RTA model are similar to the concerns listed for special districts. It is difficult to create an additional taxing authority, especially in the current economic climate. The establishment of a new RTA requires passing enabling legislation, which can also be difficult. While the RTA model is the most effective management structure, it is also the most difficult to create and is not a likely or necessary alternative for SCT/Link.

26 Ibid.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 27 SCT/LINK – MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT PLAN

The following table provides a summary of model fundamental elements. Exhibit 3.3.2 Management Structure Summary

Regional Transit Coordinating Joint Powers Authority Memorandum of Understanding Regional Transit Authority Council

Creation Method of creation Agreement Agreement Legislation Agreement Governance Policy level representation for city/county  Possible  - Policy level representation for other stakeholders - Possible Possible Possible Policy input for city/county  Possible   Policy input for other stakeholders  Possible   Regional perspective  Possible   Powers and functions Construct, operate, and maintain transit     Construct, operate, and maintain other modes Possible   Possible Condemn property and issue bonds  - Possible  Taxing and revenue authority Potential for new funding - -  - Reduce reliance on city/county general funds - -  - Expenditure and funding obligations Primary control Board Agencies Board Agencies Secondary control Agencies N/A Agencies N/A Withdrawl Permits withdrawl   Difficult N/A Method of withdrawl Agreement Notification Legislation N/A Source: adapted from "Governance Models for Regional Transit Coordination", University of Kansas Transportation Center, and "Charolottesville-Albemarle Regional Transit Authority Plan, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, Charlottesville, VA, 2008.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 28