Western El Dorado County 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Final Report
Prepared for the El Dorado County Transportation Commission, and El Dorado County Transit Authority
Prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC.
Western El Dorado County
2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Prepared for the
El Dorado County Transportation Commission 2828 Easy Street, Suite 1 Placerville, California 95667 (530) 642-5262
and the
El Dorado County Transit Authority 6565 Commerce Way Diamond Springs, California 95619 (530) 642-5383
Prepared by
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2690 Lake Forest Road, Suite C P.O. Box 5875 Tahoe City, California 96145 (530) 583-4053
June 18, 2008
LSC 077530
Executive Summary
The El Dorado County Transportation Commission (EDCTC) retained LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. to prepare a 5-Year Short Range Transit Plan to improve and enhance transit services for Fiscal Years (FY) 2008/09 to 2012/13, through June 30, 2013. This plan document first presents and reviews the characteristics of the study area, including demographic factors. A thorough review of existing land use and transportation plans is then presented. The operating history of transit services is reviewed, and demand for transit services in the study area evaluated. Finally, a detailed, financially constrained Short Range Transit Plan is presented for the future improvement in El Dorado County Transit Authority (EDCTA) services.
Study Area
This study considers the portion of El Dorado County to the west of the Sierra Crest. Population of the area in 2006 is estimated based on U.S. Census data as 144,000. Of this total, 17 percent was elderly (age 60 or above), 2.1 percent was mobility-limited, 6.8 percent were low-income, while 2.8 percent of households did not own a private vehicle. Population from 2000 to 2006 grew at 2.2 percent per year countywide. Sacramento Council of Governments (SACOG) projections identify future population growth of 56.0 percent by 2025. The study presents detailed information on travel and commute patterns.
Existing Transit Services
Western El Dorado County transit services are provided through a joint powers agreement between the EDCTA, County of El Dorado, and City of Placerville. The EDCTA is governed by a five-member Board of Directors. Existing services include local fixed-route and deviated fixed-route services (Placerville, Pollock Pines, Cameron Park, Diamond Springs, Folsom Lake College), rural routes (Grizzly Flat and South County), Commuter Services to downtown Sacramento, the Iron Point Connector serving Light Rail in Folsom, Dial-A-Ride, SAC-MED Non-Emergency Medical Appointment Transportation, and contract services. The service operates a total of 55 vehicles in passenger service. Systemwide ridership for FY 2006/07 on all EDCTA services was 360,569 one-way passenger-trips, an increase of 24 percent since FY 2001/02. Ridership growth has been particularly strong on the local routes, which grew by 41 percent over this period.
Other transit providers serving the study area consist of the Senior Shuttle, volunteer programs, the Gold Country Express airport shuttle service, taxi companies, and vanpool programs. The area is also served by Amtrak Thruway.
Short-Range Plan
Service Plan
Establish Deviated Fixed-Route Service in El Dorado Hills – One vehicle will be used to operate hourly service generally along the El Dorado Hills Boulevard corridor, from Village Center on the north to Valley View Parkway on the south, from roughly 10 AM to 6 PM. This vehicle will also serve on-request stops within a three quarters of a mile distance of the route. Schedules will be coordinated with service along US 50. Future expansion of this service may be considered if demand and financial conditions allow.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Executive Summary Page ES-1
Ultimately Convert to a “Community – Express” Route System – When financial conditions allow and ridership levels warrant, the existing local and Iron Point Connector services will be reconfigured to provide hourly express service along the US 50 corridor making limited stops between Placerville and Folsom, with the individual communities served by “Community Routes” in Placerville, Diamond Springs/Folsom Lake College, Cameron Park/Shingle Springs, and El Dorado Hills. This route plan will provide more frequent, more consistent, and faster service throughout the corridor.
Combine Placerville Express and Pollock Pines Routes – The current service plan requires passengers traveling between these two routes to transfer at Placerville Station, which is an inconvenience and source of stress. These routes will be combined to provide a “one bus” trip between Pollock Pines and Missouri Flat.
Provide Service to New Developments in the Placerville Area – New on-call stops will be added to the Placerville Shuttle routes to serve “The Ridge at Orchard Hill” subdivision along Mallard Lane as well as the Eskaton Senior Community on Blairs Lane.
Consider Temporary Changes to Local Routes to Address Construction Delays – EDCTA will consider strategies to temporarily modify “interlined” routes in order to minimize delays to passengers associated with major long-term construction projects.
Shift Iron Point Connector Schedule to Better Serve Commute Schedules – EDCTA will shift Iron Point Connector schedules mid-day, in order to better serve eastbound commuters in the PM commute period and to increase service effectiveness.
Serve Red Hawk Casino on Iron Point Connector – Reflecting that the Red Hawk Casino will be a major new employment center, the Iron Point Connector will be modified slightly to serve a stop at the casino. As impacts to operations will be minimal, this is expected to generate increases in fares that more than offset the impact on operating costs.
Consider Changes to Iron Point Connector in Folsom – EDCTA will continue to work with the City of Folsom to coordinate services and improve stops, and to modify services as needed to best serve new developments (such as the new Kaiser facility).
Continue to Provide Downtown Sacramento Commuter Service – While it is inequitable that all transit costs for downtown service are borne by the “residential end” of the trip, El Dorado County residents gain substantial benefits from the existing service that would be significantly degraded if services were to be curtailed to require transfers to light rail. This plan continues the current level of service to downtown Sacramento, but recognizes that this level represents the maximum that can be provided under current funding conditions.
Consider a Rancho Cordova Stop on Limited Sacramento Commuter Runs Once Local Rancho Cordova Services are Improved – It is not cost effective for EDCTA to provide local services to employment sites in Rancho Cordova (as least without outside funding). However, if Rancho Cordova implements the extensive local transit network currently being planned, EDCTA will consider adding a stop on existing services to provide transfer opportunities.
Eliminate the South County Service – EDCTA will discontinue the 1-day-a-week South County Route, reflecting the low ridership (150 one-way rides per year) and low effectiveness (roughly $90 in subsidy per passenger-trip).
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page ES-2 Short Range Transit Plan Executive Summary
Expand Dial-A-Ride Service – An additional 8 vehicle service-hours of Dial-A-Ride service will be provided per weekday to meet existing and potential future demand. The daily vehicle service hours will be allocated by operations staff depending on anticipated needs and observed operating patterns.
Contract for Provision of Weekly Georgetown/Cool/Pilot Hill Service to Auburn – EDCTA will investigate provision of rural one-day-a-week service between Georgetown, Cool, Pilot Hill, and Auburn using a contractor based in Placer County.
Participate in Regional Efforts to Expand Intercity Transit Service Along US 50 – EDCTC and EDCTA should work with others in the region to expand transit services along the US 50 corridor where feasible.
Short-Range Capital Plan
Fleet Replacement and Expansion – A total of 26 vehicles will need to be acquired over the coming five years: 23 for replacement of existing vehicles and 3 for expansion of services. Total cost is estimated to equal $6,300,000.
Improvements to Passenger Amenities and Bus Stops – Major projects will consist of the Central Transit Center in Diamond Springs, the Bass Lake Road Park-and-Ride, improvements to the Ponderosa Road Park-and-Ride, and a new Missouri Flat passenger transfer center and park-and-ride. New shelters with benches will be installed at 24 stops, and new benches will be installed at 3 stops. Transit schedule displays will be installed at all locations with ten or more boardings per day.
Improve Transit Security – EDCTA will install alarm, video surveillance, and automatic gates at the maintenance facility, and will install mobile video surveillance systems on all commuter and local buses. Grants will also be pursued to install solar energy arrays at the maintenance facility.
Retired Van Donation Program – EDCTA will implement a program to donate older (but still useable) vans to community organizations in El Dorado County.
Enhance the Regional Alternative Transportation Network – Reflecting the synergy between public transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel modes, EDCTA will expand bike lockers and racks at transit stops, strive to provide expanded bicycle carrying capacity on buses, and work with local public works and planning departments to enhance bicycle and pedestrian access to bus stops.
Implement Advanced Public Transit Technologies – EDCTA will participate in a Sacramento region-wide program to implement a “smart card” program to ease regional travel and increase the convenience of fare payment and processing. EDCTA will also investigate installation of mobile data terminals on buses to aid communications and security.
Short-Range Institutional and Management Plan
Improve Security Procedures – EDCTA will formalize agreements with local emergency services for provision of trained transportation services as part of emergency response efforts in the region.
Review Local Route Transfer Policy – EDCTA will conduct a focused study of existing transfer use on the local route system, and potential ways to address any abuse while minimizing inconvenience to passengers and drivers.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Short Range Transit Plan Executive Summary Page ES-3
Revise Sacramento RT Transfer Agreement – The existing transfer agreement will be modified to eliminate the inequitable provision by which each system provides free service to employees of the other system.
Improve Marketing Efforts – Including marketing pieces to encourage additional use of connecting services to Sacramento and the Sacramento International Airport, improvements to branding and advertising, coordination with social service program managers, enhanced marketing to the Hispanic community, and developing an e-mail list that will be used to notify passengers of service changes or interruptions.
Revise Minimum Farebox Return Requirement – In accordance with TDA and reflecting the mixed urban/rural status of Western El Dorado County, EDCTC will submit to Caltrans a request to change the minimum farebox return ratio from 10.0 percent to 11.5 percent.
Short-Range Financial Plan
Reflecting recent economic trends, Local Transportation Funds (LTF) are assumed to remain flat through the end of FY 2008/09, and then to increase by a relatively low rate of 3 percent per year. To address increasing costs in light of this constraint on EDCTA’s most important source of operating funds and also to address current inequities in the overall fare program, the following fare increases will be implemented:
In FY 2008/09, the Senior Day Care subscription fare will be increased from $2.00 to $3.00 per day (round trip).
In FY 2008/09, the Dial-A-Ride zone fare system will be modified by increasing fares in the El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park zones to match the fares currently charged for trips of similar length (and operating cost) in other zones.
In FY 2008/09, a $1.25 fare will be established for elderly/disabled passengers on the Iron Point Connector, in order to allow future use of FTA Section 5307 funds on this service.
In FY 2009/10, the Dial-A-Ride base fare will be increase from $3.00 to $4.00 for the general public, and from $1.50 to $2.00 for elderly/disabled passengers.
In FY 2009/10, the Local Route base fare will be increased from $1.10 to $1.25 for the general public and from $$0.55 to $0.60 for elderly/disabled passengers.
A FTA 5316 (Jobs Access/Reverse Commute) grant is included in the plan to implement the Community/Express plan element. Proposition 1B funds are allocated for major capital and security plan elements. Other funding sources are also assumed to change in a conservative fashion. Considering all operating and capital costs, positive fund balances can be maintained through the plan period for both the Capital Fund and the Section 5307 Fund. The Capital Fund is forecast to have a minimum balance of $218,700 which is a reasonable level to address short-term funding needs, or changes in state or Federal funding levels. Overall, under this plan EDCTA ridership will grow by 36 percent over current levels, while still maintaining strong financial conditions.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page ES-4 Short Range Transit Plan Executive Summary TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page
1 Introduction...... 1 Key Study Issues...... 1
2 Study Area Characteristics...... 3 Study Area...... 3 Population...... 3 Major Activity Centers ...... 10 Economy ...... 10 Employment...... 10 Means of Transportation to Work...... 17 Commute Patterns...... 19 Traffic Conditions...... 19 Planned Development ...... 21 Existing Planning Processes ...... 23 Air Quality...... 32 Findings of El Dorado County’s Unmet Transit Needs...... 32
3 Transportation Services...... 35 Background...... 35 Existing El Dorado Transit Services...... 35 Existing Service Calendar...... 44 Existing Fare Media...... 45 Discontinued Transit Services ...... 46 Existing Ridership and Service Levels ...... 46 Financial Characteristics...... 74 Fiscal Year 2006/07 System Performance Analysis...... 77 Transit Capital Assets ...... 87 El Dorado County Transit Authority Transit Passenger Characteristics ...... 95 Other Transit Providers in El Dorado County ...... 95 Regional Transportation Service...... 97
4 Transit Demand Analysis...... 99 Non-Program Demand Estimation...... 99 Non-Program Rural Demand Estimation...... 104 Social Service Program-Related Transit Demand ...... 104 Summary of Short-Range Transit Demand...... 109
5 EDCTA Goals and Objectives Analysis...... 113 Background...... 113 Review of Existing Adopted Goals...... 113 Recommended Goals, Performance Measures, and Standards...... 116
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page
6 Service Alternatives...... 123 Deviated Fixed-Route Service Alternatives...... 123 Iron Point Connector Service Alternatives ...... 134 Commuter Service Alternatives...... 136 Rural Route Alternatives...... 143 Dial-A-Ride/SAC-MED Alternatives...... 145 Comparison of Short-Range Service Alternatives...... 147
7 Capital Alternatives...... 153 Vehicle Alternatives...... 153 Passenger Facilities...... 160 Advanced Public Transit System Technologies ...... 163
8 Institutional and Management Alternatives...... 171 Contracting for Transit Services ...... 171 Greater Sacramento Regional Commuter Transit Funding Workshops ...... 172 Transfer Policy...... 173 Safety and Security ...... 174 Marketing Improvements...... 176
9 Financial Alternatives...... 181 Federal Transit Funding Sources ...... 181 State Transit Funding Sources ...... 184 Local Transit Funding Sources ...... 185 Increased Passenger Revenues...... 186
10 Short-Range Transit Plan...... 193 Service Plan ...... 193 Capital Plan...... 202 Institutional and Management Plan ...... 206 Financial Plan...... 209 Implementation Plan...... 218
LIST OF TABLES Table Page
1 El Dorado Countywide Population History ...... 5 2 Western El Dorado County 2000 Demographic Data by Census Tract...... 6 3 Major Activity Centers in Western El Dorado County...... 13 4 El Dorado Countywide 2007 Labor Force Data ...... 17 5 Major Employers in Western El Dorado County...... 18
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc Western El Dorado County . Page ii 2008 Short Range Transit Plan LIST OF TABLES Table Page
6 Estimated Travel-To-Work Mode Split...... 18 7 Commuter Patterns To and From El Dorado County ...... 20 8 El Dorado County Transit Authority Fare Structure...... 45 9 Sacramento Regional Transit Fare Media Tally for Fiscal Year 2006/07...... 47 10 El Dorado County Transit Authority Historical Ridership...... 49 11 El Dorado County Transit Authority – Local and Rural Routes Historical Ridership ...... 53 12 El Dorado County Transit Authority Historical Annual Vehicle Hours of Service...... 55 13 El Dorado Transit Historical Annual Vehicle Miles of Service ...... 57 14 El Dorado County Transit Authority Historical Productivity...... 58 15 El Dorado County Transit Authority Ridership by Day of Week ...... 59 16 Total El Dorado County Transit Authority Ridership by Month Fiscal Year 2006/07 ...... 61 17 El Dorado County Transit Authority Placerville Routes Average Weekday Passenger Activity by Stop...... 62 18 El Dorado County Transit Authority Cameron Park Routes Average Weekday Passenger Activity by Stop...... 63 19 El Dorado County Transit Authority Diamond Springs Routes Average Weekday Passenger Activity by Stop...... 63 20 El Dorado County Transit Authority Folsom Lake College Routes Average Weekday Passenger Activity by Stop ...... 65 21 El Dorado County Transit Authority Pollock Pines Routes Average Weekday Passenger Activity by Stop...... 65 22 El Dorado County Transit Authority Rural Routes Average Weekday Passenger Activity by Stop ...... 66 23 El Dorado County Transit Authority Total Average Weekday Passenger Activity for Local and Rural Routes...... 67 24 Dial-A-Ride Origin/Destination Trip Patterns – October 24, 2006...... 71 25 El Dorado County Transit Authority Average Weekday Commuter Route Boarding Summary...... 73 26 El Dorado County Transit Authority Commuter Route Average Weekday Boardings by Stop...... 74 27 El Dorado County Transit Authority Average Weekday Iron Point Commuter Passengers...... 75 28 El Dorado County Transit Authority Cost Allocation Model, Fiscal Year 2006/07 ...... 76 29 El Dorado County Transit Authority Revenues, Fiscal Years 2002/03 through 2007/08...... 77 30 El Dorado County Transit Authority Operating Data and Performance Indicators – Local/Rural Routes and Special Event Services (2 pages) ...... 79, 80 31 El Dorado County Transit Authority Shelter and Bench Locations ...... 91 32 El Dorado County Transit Authority Vehicle Inventory and Mileage ...... 92
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page iii LIST OF TABLES Table Page
33 Western El Dorado County Demographic Projections (2015) by Census Tract...... 100 34 Western El Dorado County Employee Transit Use Method of Urban Demand Estimation...... 101 35 Western El Dorado County Modal Split Method of Demand Estimation ...... 103 36 Transit Cooperative Research Program Method of Rural Demand Estimation – 2000 Data Inputs...... 105 37 Transit Cooperative Research Program Method of Rural Demand Estimation – 2000 Estimates...... 106 38 Transit Cooperative Research Program Method of Rural Demand Estimation – 2015 Data Inputs...... 107 39 Transit Cooperative Research Program Method of Rural Demand Estimation – 2015 Estimates...... 108 40 El Dorado County Program-Related Transit Demand...... 108 41 Summary of Western El Dorado County Transit Demand ...... 110 42 Western El Dorado County Goals and Standards for Transit Service...... 117 43 El Dorado County Transit Authority Service Alternatives...... 126 44 Ridership Analysis of Commuter Route Reductions...... 138 45 Evaluation of Systemwide Farebox Ratio with Commuter Route Reduction .....139 46 El Dorado County Transit Authority Service Alternatives Performance Analysis ...... 151 47 Peer Review of Dial-A-Ride Route Fares...... 188 48 Peer Fare Review on Commuter Downtown Sacramento Services...... 190 49 Peer Fare Review – Local Routes...... 192 50 Revised Iron Point Connector Schedule ...... 199 51 El Dorado County Transit Authority Bus Stop Improvement Program ...... 205 52 El Dorado County Transit Authority SRTP – Estimated Operating Cost ...... 211 53 El Dorado County Transit Authority SRTP – Estimated Ridership ...... 212 54 El Dorado County Transit Authority SRTP – Estimated Farebox Revenues ...... 213 55 El Dorado County Transit Authority SRTP – Capital Plan ...... 214 56 El Dorado County Transit Authority SRTP – Financial Plan...... 216
LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page
1 Western El Dorado County Site and Location...... 4 2 Western El Dorado County Census Tracts Map...... 7 3 Western El Dorado County Elderly Population by Census Tract...... 8 4 Western El Dorado County Mobility Limited Persons by Census Tract...... 9 5 Western El Dorado County Persons Below Poverty Level by Census Tract ...... 11
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc Western El Dorado County . Page iv 2008 Short Range Transit Plan LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page
6 Western El Dorado County Zero Vehicle Households by Census Tract...... 12 7 El Dorado County Transit Authority Transit Activity Centers...... 15 8 El Dorado County Transit Authority Approved Organization Chart Fiscal Year 2007/08 ...... 36 9 El Dorado County Transit Authority Local Fixed-Routes...... 37 10 Western El Dorado County and Sacramento Commuter Bus Route Bus Map...... 38 11 El Dorado County Transit Authority Dial-A-Ride Zone System Map...... 42 12 El Dorado County Transit Authority Annual Ridership...... 50 13 El Dorado County Transit Authority Historical Ridership by Service...... 51 14 Proportion of Annual El Dorado County Transit Authority Ridership by Service...... 52 15 El Dorado County Transit Authority Annual Vehicle-Hours of Service...... 56 16 El Dorado County Transit Authority Average Weekday Boardings by Hour - Placerville Routes...... 68 17 El Dorado County Transit Authority Average Weekday Boardings by Hour – Cameron Park/Diamond Springs/Folsom Lake College Routes ...... 69 18 El Dorado County Transit Authority Average Weekday Boardings by Hour – Pollock Pines Route...... 70 19 Average Weekday Dial-A-Ride Pickups by Hour of Day...... 72 20 El Dorado County Transit Authority Annual Ridership, Fiscal Year 2006/07...... 81 21 El Dorado County Transit Authority Annual Operating Cost, Fiscal Year 2006/07 ...... 82 22 El Dorado County Transit Authority Annual Operating Subsidy, Fiscal Year 2006/07 ...... 83 23 Proportion of Annual El Dorado County Transit Authority Operating Subsidy...... 84 24 El Dorado County Transit Authority Farebox Recovery Ratio, Fiscal Year 2006/07 ...... 85 25 El Dorado County Transit Authority Operating Cost/Trip, Fiscal Year 2006/07 ...... 87 26 El Dorado County Transit Authority Operating Subsidy/Trip, Fiscal Year 2006/07 ...... 88 27 El Dorado County Transit Authority Trips/Vehicle Service Hours, Fiscal Year 2006/07 ...... 89 28 El Dorado County Transit Authority Trips/Vehicle Service Miles, Fiscal Year 2006/07 ...... 90 29 El Dorado County Transit Authority Existing Bus Stop Shelters and Benches...... 93 30 El Dorado County Transit Authority Weekday Vehicle Utilization by Route & Time of Day ...... 94 31 Western El Dorado County Urban Transit Demand...... 111
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page v LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page
32 Western El Dorado County Rural Transit Demand ...... 111 33 Potential El Dorado Hills Deviated Fixed-Route...... 124 34 Community/Express Route Alternative ...... 128 35 Annual Ridership by Alternative ...... 148 36 Annual Subsidy Requirement by Alternative ...... 149 37 El Dorado County Transit Authority Short-Range Transit Plan...... 194 38 Recommended El Dorado Hills Deviated Fixed-Route...... 195 39 Annual LTF Revenue Available to El Dorado County Transit Authority...... 217
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc Western El Dorado County . Page vi 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Chapter 1 Introduction
Public transportation serves important roles in Western El Dorado County, providing mobility to area residents and employees, helping to solve environmental conditions, and contributing to the economy of the region. Like any business, it is important that an ongoing planning process be followed to guide the provision of public transportation services. The El Dorado County Transportation Commission (EDCTC) was awarded a Transit Technical Assistance Grant by Caltrans to develop a Short Range Transit Plan for the western slope of El Dorado County. This plan updates a previous Short and Long Range Transit Plan conducted for the area in 2003, developed to span the years of 2003/04 through 2007/08. This current plan guides transit operations over the next five years (2008/09 through 2012/13). The EDCTC retained the services of LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. (LSC) to develop this plan.
This Plan first presents a review of the setting for transit services such as demographic and employment conditions in Western El Dorado County, as well as a detailed analysis of current services being provided, and an evaluation of current goals and objectives for the El Dorado County Transit Authority. Next the overall demand for transit services in the region is evaluated. This information was then used to develop service, capital, financial, and institutional alternatives for EDCTA. Finally, a detailed five-year operating and financial plan is presented along with an approximate schedule for implementation.
KEY STUDY ISSUES
The Social Services Transit Advisory Committee (SSTAC), EDCTC Policy Advisory Committee (PAC), and EDCTA Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), along with transit staff, provided oversight and input for this Short Range Transit Plan. Through meetings with the advisory committees and the public, stakeholder interviews, and discussions with transit staff, the following key transit issues have been identified for the study:
Needs for transit services are increasing, due to growth, development, and changes in demographics. In particular, the need for senior transportation is increasing as County residents “age in place.”
Service to new development needs to be considered, particularly in El Dorado Hills (commercial and residential), Placerville, along Green Valley Road, and the Red Hawk Casino.
Demand for the general public DAR system significantly exceeds the capacity.
While there are mobility needs in remote rural portions of the area (particularly as an important link to social services), services already provided to these areas have low productivity.
Some existing services have relatively low productivity and merit review.
The need for transit services over the El Dorado/Sacramento County line is growing in both directions. The appropriate role of the EDCTA needs to be defined.
These issues provided guidance for the direction of the study.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 1
This page left intentionally blank.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 2 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Chapter 2 Study Area Characteristics
STUDY AREA
El Dorado County is located in the foothills and mountains of the Sierra Nevada, in East-Central California. The terrain ranges from the rolling hills at the edge of the Sacramento Valley to the high peaks of the Sierra, with over half of the land in public ownership. This study considers the western slope of El Dorado County (west of the Sierra Crest) including Placerville, Cameron Park, El Dorado Hills, Pollock Pines, and Diamond Springs, as well as smaller communities. The City of Placerville is the County seat and is currently the only incorporated town within the study area.
Part bedroom community, part idyllic rural community, and also a tourist destination, El Dorado County is a desirable location to live and visit, and has experienced residential and tourism growth in recent years. In particular, the area’s proximity to employment opportunities in Sacramento County has generated substantial suburban growth in the western portion of the County.
Western El Dorado County (excluding the Tahoe Basin) is approximately 1.1 million acres in size. Natural resource uses comprise approximately 66.0 percent (722,175 acres) of this total area. The remaining acreage in Western El Dorado County is comprised of one incorporated city, residential, public land, industrial, commercial, and state and county roads. The study area is presented in Figure 1.
The major arterial east/west access is provided by US Highway 50 (US 50), connecting the area with Sacramento to the west and South Lake Tahoe and Carson City, Nevada to the east. North/south highway access to the area is provided by Highway 49, connecting the area with Auburn to the northwest and Sonora to the southeast. State Route 193 provides northern access to Georgetown.
POPULATION
Historical Population
A key factor regarding future trends in transit need is change in population. The relatively undeveloped character of the County, coupled with the study area’s proximity to the growing Sacramento area, has resulted in substantial and continuing population growth. Population growth trends over the past 30 years for the County and the State are presented in Table 1. As presented, the annual population growth rate in El Dorado County over the 1990s was 2.2 percent, which exceeded that of California as a whole. Further, based on the most current population data provided by the U.S. Census for 2006, the population of the County has grown at the annual rate of 2.2 percent since 2000, a faster growth rate than that of the state, which has seen a 1.2 percent growth rate over the past six years.
Potentially Transit Dependent Population
Nationwide, transit system ridership is drawn largely from various groups of persons who make up what is often called the “potentially transit dependent” population. This category includes elderly persons, persons with disabilities, low-income persons, and members of households with no available vehicles. There is considerable overlap among these groups.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 3
50 _ LAKE TAHOE CALIFORNIA COUNTY EL DORADO
L I
A
R
T
T
N
A
R
G I M E
N
O M
R
O M AMADOR COUNTY GRIZZLY FLAT FRESH POND EL DORADO COUNTY
. L AKRD. PARK SLY D R PINO GRANDE AT L
POLLOCK PINES F FIGURE 1
Y L Z Z I
R G
. D R S G
IN
PLEASANT VALLEY R .
P CAMINO
S D SOMERSET R
H
M MT AUKUM
T U
M
K R
PLACER COUNTY
T U
O A
OQIORD. MOSQUITO
W
T
N
E W 5 DIAMOND SPRINGS GEORGETOWN PLACERVILLE NASHVILLE 49 SCALE IN MILES 193 COLOMA 0 VALLEY GARDEN Western El Dorado County Site and Location SHINGLE SPRINGS RESCUE 49 LOTUS 80 \ ] ^ HILL PILOT COOL CAMERON PARK LATROBE
LATROBE RD. 49 EL EL HILLS HILLS LEGEND DORADO DORADO HIGHWAYS ROADS LAKES COUNTY BOUNDARY URBAN AREA 49 SACRAMENTO COUNTY 50 _ RES.
FOLSOM FOLSOM CONSULTANTS, INC. TRANSPORTATION 80 Eldoradosite 193 \ ] ^
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 4 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
TABLE 1: El Dorado Countywide Population History 1970 1980 1990 2000 2006 1
El Dorado County Population 43,833 85,812 125,995 156,299 178,066 Annual Percent Growth – 6.9% 3.9% 2.2% 2.2%
Over Previous 10 Years – 95.8% 46.8% 24.1% –
California 19,953,134 23,667,902 29,760,021 33,871,648 36,457,549 Annual Percent Growth – 1.7% 2.3% 1.3% 1.2% Over Previous 10 Years – 18.6% 25.7% 13.8% –
NOTE 1: Population obtained from the 2006 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Table 2 presents the transit dependent population by census tract in Western El Dorado County from the 2000 U.S. Census data. Figure 2 presents the census divisions in the study area that correspond to this table. (Unfortunately, this 2000 data is the most recent available at a level beyond the countywide totals.) As presented in the table, the population of Western El Dorado County in 2000 was 122,257. The greatest population density was found in the census tracts that comprise El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park, with up to 2,857 persons per square mile. In comparison, the average density in Western El Dorado County was 79 persons per square mile, based on 122,257 persons and 1,551.4 total square miles.
There were an estimated 22,059 persons aged 60 or over residing in Western El Dorado County, comprising 18.0 percent of the total population. This proportion was slightly higher than the statewide average of 14.0 percent. Indeed, only 5 of the 27 census tracts in Western El Dorado County had a lower proportion of seniors to the total population than the statewide average. The percentage of elderly persons was distributed fairly evenly throughout Western El Dorado County, although relatively high proportions of elderly residents were found in the Southeast County and South Missouri Flat areas. On an absolute basis, it is interesting to note that census tracts with relatively high numbers of elderly residents are located in many portions of the study area, with census tracts exceeding 1,000 residents located in Garden Valley, Cameron Park, Placerville, Pleasant Valley, South Missouri Flat, and Deer Park. This information is presented graphically in Figure 3.
The U.S. Census Bureau defines “mobility limited” as persons having a health condition lasting more than six months that makes it difficult to go outside the home alone. It is estimated there were 2,718 mobility limited persons in Western El Dorado County in 2000, which comprised 2.2 percent of the study area population. In comparison, the statewide average was 5.1 percent. The Northwest Placerville area had the greatest concentration of mobility limited persons within the study area, both in terms of absolute numbers (256) and percentage (4.5 percent). In total, almost as many mobility limited residents live in the Cameron Park census tracts (447) as live in the central Placerville census tracts (449). This information is presented graphically in Figure 4.
Low-income persons are another likely market for transit services, as measured by the number of persons living below the poverty level. An estimated 6,848 low-income persons reside in the study area, representing 5.6 percent of the total Western El Dorado County population. In comparison, the statewide average was significantly higher at 13.5 percent. The proportion of residents below poverty status was highest in the South Placerville and South Missouri Flat areas. Census tracts with relatively high absolute
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 5
Area 1.1% 2.7% 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.9% 2.6% 5.0% 1.0% 0.9% 3.7% 1.3% 1.9% 8.2% 8.9% 4.1% 3.8% 7.6% 1.0% 6.2% 2.7% 2.0% 6.4% 3.7% 5.4% 12.2% Percent of Household 0 0 6 6 19 59 14 16 33 21 29 74 13 30 76 51 19 50 24 41 37 109 194 189 146 149 112 Total Zero-Vehicles Per Number Area 2.1% 7.6% 7.2% 1.7% 0.6% 1.3% 6.1% 1.0% 4.4% 3.4% 4.8% 4.9% 5.6% 8.0% 4.4% 9.0% 9.3% 9.4% 6.5% 0.0% 5.7% 6.5% 7.3% 9.2% 7.1% 6.6% 12.2% (2) Percent of Status 0 99 91 36 89 37 437 202 116 255 195 443 253 151 351 254 459 590 315 435 314 127 159 386 520 186 348 Total Number Persons Below Poverty (1) Area 1.9% 2.0% 1.7% 0.2% 1.6% 0.8% 1.0% 4.4% 2.9% 2.3% 2.6% 0.9% 0.3% 2.1% 4.5% 0.4% 3.6% 2.2% 2.9% 3.7% 0.0% 2.9% 1.9% 2.3% 3.0% 3.1% 2.5% Percent of Persons 9 0 87 48 11 94 54 20 45 90 18 76 64 47 83 114 163 166 130 236 256 175 133 181 121 167 130 Mobility Limited Total Number Area 9.5% 9.8% 12.4% 19.2% 11.7% 17.6% Percent of 26 27.7% 515 716 694 915 Elderly Persons Total 1,114 1,075 Number (Aged 60 and Over) 49 666 261 13.7% 803 384 17.1% 895 480 19.7% 1,674 799 17.3% 2,1491,1081,783 1,1181,938 560 19.3% 20.1% 2,248 1,2752,176 543 14.6% 2,0513,217 980 17.0% 1,988 1,002 474 17.5% 1,555 808 18.5% 2,3672,1351,832 1,2311,358 1,0641,923 21.4% 1,0931,863 20.9% 825 22.7% 1,045 964 24.2% 22.5% 19.9% 2,0042,3161,013 1,0572,066 1,551 20.0% 545 27.5% 1,222 20.7% 23.2% 45,454 22,059 18.0% 2,718 2.2% 6,848 5.6% 1,517 3.3% 12,214,549 4,742,499 14.0% 1,718,472 5.1% 4,565,256 13.5% 1,091,214 8.9% Households Total Number Mile Per Sq. Population 94 0.5 4,607 72.4 5,7862,7875,442 42.0 5,766 5.9 1,054.7 1,191.3 7,0591,905 596.7 34.5 3,7305,795 156.2 616.5 5,7589,173 215.7 2,281.8 5,199 2,856.6 2,709 108.1 4,367 223.9 5,7505,0844,824 552.9 3,403 357.0 4,644 597.0 4,847 190.0 364.2 15.9 2,241 141.9 2,438 222.9 5,2985,6432,635 176.6 5,273 551.6 68.7 231.2 5.2 4.8 9.4 4.0 1.8 8.1 63.6 11.8 55.3 23.9 26.7 25.1 19.5 10.4 14.2 17.9 12.8 15.8 10.9 30.0 10.2 38.3 22.8 137.8 474.7 305.7 190.6 1,551 122,257 78.8 160,042 33,871,648 211.6 Square Miles Total Number Description Shaded Areas Represent Urban State of California Totals Western El Dorado County Totals Tract 306.01 Pilot Hill / Cool 306.02 Greenwood / Garden Valley 306.03 North Central County 307.01 Zee Estates / Lakeridge Oaks 307.02 Hidden Valley / Crescent Ridge Village 307.03 Greenvalley Acres / Oak Ridge Village 307.04 Clarksville / Latrobe 308.01 Deer Valley / Rescue 308.03 East Cameron Park 308.04 Shingle Springs / Frenchtown 308.05 West Cameron Park 308.06 Central Cameron Park 309.01 Coloma / Lotus Road Area 309.02 N. Greenstone / Missouri Flat Area 310.00 Northwest Placerville 311.00 North Placerville 312.00 South Placerville 313.01 Smith Flat / Camino 313.02 N. Pollock Pines / Cedar Grove 314.02 Somerset / Mt. Aukum 314.03 Southeast County 314.04 Newton / Old Fort Jim 314.05 Rancho Del Sol / Gold Ridge 314.06 Fresh Pond / Pleasant Valley 315.02 South Missouri Flat Area 315.03 Kingsville / Nashville 315.04 Deer Park Area Census TABLE 2: Western El Dorado County 2000 Demographic Data by Census Tract Note 1: Mobility Limited includes persons aged 16 to 64. Note 2: Poverty Status includes persons aged 0 to 64. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000; California Department of Finance
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 6 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
50 LAKE TAHOE DORADO COUNTY COUNTY EASTERN EASTERN EL EL DORADO LEGEND HIGHWAYS LAKES COUNTY BOUNDARY CENSUS TRACT BOUNDARY CENSUS TRACT NUMBER 10001 31403 GRIZZLY FLAT 30603 31402 31406 FIGURE 2 31302 POLLOCK PINES 31301 31301 VALLEY CAMINO 0 PLEASANT 31404 MT AUKUM 31100 31504 31200 51 30602 SPRINGS DIAMOND SCALE IN MILES GEORGETOWN PLACERVILLE 31502 49 31000 COLOMA 0 31503 VALLEY GARDEN Western El Dorado County Census Tracts Map 30902 SHINGLE SPRINGS RESCUE LOTUS 30804 30901 30803 30806 HILL PILOT COOL 30704 30801 30805 49 30601 EL EL 30703 HILLS HILLS DORADO DORADO
30702 50 30701
CONSULTANTS, INC. TRANSPORTATION FOLSOM eldoradotracts RESERVOIR
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 7
50 DORADO COUNTY COUNTY EASTERN EASTERN EL EL DORADO LEGEND HIGHWAYS LAKES COUNTY BOUNDARY CENSUS TRACT BOUNDARY 0-519 ELDERLY PERSONS 520-809 ELDERLY PERSONS 810-1069 ELDERLY PERSONS 1070-1600 ELDERLY PERSONS FIGURE 3 0 51 IN MILES SCALE 49 0 Western El Dorado County Elderly Population by Census Tract 49 50
CONSULTANTS, INC. TRANSPORTATION ELDORADOELDERLY
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 8 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
50 DORADO COUNTY COUNTY EASTERN EASTERN EL EL DORADO LEGEND HIGHWAYS LAKES COUNTY BOUNDARY 0-46 MOBILITY LIMITED PERSONS 47-89 MOBILITY LIMITED PERSONS 90-139 MOBILITY LIMITED PERSONS 140-260 MOBILITY LIMITED PERSONS FIGURE 4 0 51 IN MILES SCALE 49 0 49 Western El Dorado County Mobility Limited Persons by Census Tract 50
CONSULTANTS, INC. TRANSPORTATION ELDORADOMOBILITY
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 9
populations of low-income persons were found in many parts of the study area; tracts with more than 400 low-income residents were in Garden Valley, Cameron Park, Central Placerville, Pollock Pines, and Missouri Flat. In comparison, the absolute value and proportion of low-income residents in the El Dorado Hills tracts was substantially below the study area average. See Figure 5 for details.
The number of households without access to an operable vehicle in 2000 was estimated at 1,517, as presented in Table 2 above. This represents 3.3 percent of the total households in the study area. In comparison, the statewide average was significantly higher at 8.9 percent. Census tracts with over 100 zero-vehicle households were found in Cameron Park, central Placerville, Pollock Pines, Missouri Flat, and Deer Park. At the other extreme, only 16 of the 4,969 households in the El Dorado Hills census tracts did not have a car available (0.2 percent). See Figure 6 for a graphic representation.
The U.S. Census 2006 American Community Survey also provided information regarding the potentially transit dependent population. While the information presented is available only for the entire County, rather than the western portion only, it can still be used to identify current overall trends. This recent data from the U.S. Census suggests that an overall proportion of population that is potentially transit dependent has not changed significantly. The proportion of persons in the County 60 years-old or over has stayed steady, comprising 16.6 percent (26,023 persons) of the population in 2000 and 16.5 percent (29,380 persons) in 2006. The mobility limited population in 2006 totaled 3,857 persons (2.1 percent), compared to 4,393 persons (2.8 percent) in 2000. The number of low income persons has increased from 6.5 percent (10,113 persons) in 2000 to 6.8 percent (12,036 persons) in 2006, while the number of households with no vehicle available has decreased from 2,688 in 2000 to 1,943 households in 2006.
MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS
There are a number of activity centers in Western El Dorado County which potentially generate transit demand. These can be categorized by health services, services for the elderly, services for individuals with disabilities, employment centers, and services for low income individuals and families. Table 3 and Figure 7 highlight the most important activity centers in the study area.
Some important medical facilities are located outside of the County boundary in Folsom. Kaiser medical offices are located at 2155 Iron Point Road in Folsom and a new hospital and surgery center are also planned in Folsom on Palacio and Iron Point Road.
ECONOMY
Historically, the local economy in Western El Dorado County was based on mining and agriculture. Today, services, retail trade, and government industries dominate the current economic base. Additionally, many development professionals, high-tech companies, and hardware and design firms add to the diversity of the economy.
EMPLOYMENT
The California Employment Development Department provides labor force data. Recent data for 2007 shows that the unemployment rate has increased from 3.9 percent in 2000 to 4.8 percent countywide and to 4.2 percent in Western El Dorado County, as shown in Table 4. This increase in unemployment may be attributed to a number of factors, namely the current overall economic climate and a large number of seasonal and recreational jobs available throughout the County.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 10 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
50 DORADO COUNTY COUNTY EASTERN EASTERN EL EL DORADO LEGEND HIGHWAYS LAKES COUNTY BOUNDARY 0-99 PERSONS BELOW POVERTY LEVEL 100-219 PERSONS BELOW POVERTY LEVEL 220-359 PERSONS BELOW POVERTY LEVEL 360-600 PERSONS BELOW POVERTY LEVEL FIGURE 5 0 51 IN MILES SCALE 49 0 49 50 Western El Dorado County Persons Below Poverty Level by Census Tract
CONSULTANTS, INC. TRANSPORTATION ELDORADOPOVERTY
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 11
50 DORADO COUNTY COUNTY EASTERN EASTERN EL EL DORADO LEGEND HIGHWAYS LAKES COUNTY BOUNDARY 0-15 ZERO VEHICLE HOUSEHOLDS 16-30 ZERO VEHICLE HOUSEHOLDS 31-75 ZERO VEHICLE HOUSEHOLDS 76-200 ZERO VEHICLE HOUSEHOLDS FIGURE 6 0 51 IN MILES SCALE 49 0 49 Western El Dorado County Zero Vehicle Households by Census Tract 50
CONSULTANTS, INC. TRANSPORTATION ELDORADOZEROVEHICLE
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 12 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Women, Infant & Children's Services Senior Services, Nutrition Site Food Closet Services for Visually Impaired Life Skills, Preventative Health, Job Skills; Non-Eng. Speakers Senior Services, Nutrition Site End of Life Services Drop-In Health Clinic Program Purpose Professional Care Management Treatment for Mental Illness Transitional Services for Recovering Addicts Senior Services Food Stamps, MediCal, CalWorks Senior Services Addiction Recovery Employment Services Senior Services Outreach Senior Nutrition Site Recovering Alcoholics Abuse Victims Services Employment Services Senior Legal Services Hospital Youth Shelter Mental Health Services Senior Nutrition Site Senior Center WIC Office Placerville Senior Center Snowline Hospice TriVisual Services Shingle Springs Tribal Health El Dorado County Food Programs El Dorado County Literacy Services El Dorado County Public Health Dept. S.H.A.R.E. Wee-Care (Family Connections El Dorado)Boys and Girls Club Adults, Children 0-5 Health Depot Mental Health Day Treatment Center El Dorado County Veteran’s Service Office Veteran's Services Senior Day Care Services Social Security Administration Elder Options Progress House Senior Center Golden Sierra Job Training Agency Senior Peer Counseling Pioneer Park Community Center El Dorado County Food Bank Alcoholics Anonymous Job One Employment Resource Center Motherlode Rehabilitation Enterprises, Inc. Services for the Disabled Adults El Dorado Women’s Center Legal Center for the Elderly Marshall Hospital New Morning Youth Shelter El Dorado County Family Support Division El Dorado County Mental Health Center El Dorado County Senior and Family Services GATES Recovery Shingle Springs Somerset Pollock Pines Activity Center (by Area) Placerville continued Community Events Mentoring Program Community Events Program Purpose Recovering Alcoholics Senior Services Senior Nutrition Site Alcohol & Drug Addiction Recovery Youth Behavioral Services Women & Children's Residence for Recovering Addicts Health Clinic Child Care Referrals Women's Addiction Recovery (residential) Men's Addiction Recovery (residential) Services for Developmentally Disabled Headstart Senior Nutrition Site and Teen Center Recovering Alcoholics Independent Living Services for Developmentally Disabled Adults Shingle Springs Community Center Recovering Alcoholics Senior Nutrition Site Recovering Alcoholics Senior Services Medical Services CA Dept of Rehabilitation Central Sierra Regional Occupational Program Job Information and Training Buckner Hall Boys and Girls Club El Dorado Council on Alcoholism (EDCA)El Dorado County Alcohol & Drug Alcohol & Drug Addiction Recovery El Dorado County Community Services El Dorado County Dept. of Social Services Alcoholics Anonymous Divide Seniors Community Center Three Forks Grange Hall Alta California Regional Center Big Brother Sister Children’s Center/Network Progress House Divide Wellness Center Choices Transitional Services Community Crisis Services Activity Centers for Seniors, Persons with Disabilities, and Low Income Individuals Families Choices for Children Boys and Girls Club Progress House Progress House Community Services District Alcoholics Anonymous Telos Youth Outposts El Dorado Hills Senior Center Sierra Immediate Care Medical Clinic Alcoholics Anonymous Lion's Hall Alcoholics Anonymous TABLE 3: Major Activity Centers in Western El Dorado County Placerville Georgetown Greenwood Mt. Aukum Camino Coloma El Dorado Hills Garden Valley Activity Center (by Area) Cameron Park Diamond Springs El Dorado Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 13
This page left intentionally blank.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 14 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 15
This page left intentionally blank.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 16 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
TABLE 4: El Dorado Countywide 2007 Labor Force Data % Area / Subarea Labor Force Employed Unemployed Unemployed
El Dorado County 93,600 89,300 4,300 4.8%
Cameron Park CDP 9,300 9,000 300 3.3%
Diamond Springs CDP 2,400 2,300 100 4.3%
El Dorado Hills CDP 10,800 10,500 300 2.9%
Georgetown CDP 500 500 0 0.0%
Placerville City 5,400 5,000 400 8.0%
Pollock Pines CDP 2,500 2,400 100 4.2%
Shingle Springs CDP 1,700 1,600 100 6.3%
Subarea Total 32,600 31,300 1,300 4.2%
Source: CA Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division, September 2007
Table 5 identifies major employers located in Western El Dorado County, according to the El Dorado County Demographic Profile (CSUC, Center for Economic Development, 2005). As shown, approximately 46 percent of the employers are within the “services” trade; this is consistent with the County’s findings for overall employers which showed that the “services” sector accounted for the majority of employers throughout the County, at 30.5 percent. It is also worth noting that many of these largest employers are not currently on an EDCTA local route.
MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK
Table 6 presents the means of transportation to work for employed Western El Dorado County residents. Based on the information collected from the 2000 U.S. Census, the majority of employed residents (77.7 percent) drove alone, while 12.8 percent carpooled. In addition, 1.5 percent walked, 1.3 percent used public transportation, 0.8 percent used “other” means (including motorcycles), and none bicycled. An estimated 6.0 percent of employed persons worked at home, which is significantly higher than the statewide average of 3.2 percent.
According to data results from the 2006 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, the transportation patterns of residents countywide has changed slightly (data specifically for the western portion of the County is not available). The 2000 Census indicated that Countywide, only 0.3 percent of residents biked to work; the 2006 data reveals that this has increased to 1.2 percent. Additionally, the number of employed residents that walk to work has increased from 2.2 percent to 2.6 percent; however use of public transportation overall has decreased from 1.8 percent to 1.2 percent, and carpooling now captures 12.1 percent of employed residents, a decrease of 1.2 percent from the 2000 Census. A larger proportion of residents are working from home, 6.6 percent throughout the County compared to 5.8 percent in 2000, which may attribute to the decreases and variations within the last six years.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 17
TABLE 5: Major Employers in Western El Dorado County
Total No. Employer Type of Business Location Employees
DST Output / DST Innovis Services El Dorado Hills 1,000 to 4,999 Blue Shield Services El Dorado Hills 1,000 to 4,999 Amdocs Ltd. Publishing El Dorado Hills 1,000 to 4,999 Marshall Hospital Services Placerville 1,000 to 4,999 El Dorado Hills, Cameron Raley's / Bel Air Services 500 to 999 Park, Placerville End Wave Corp. Services Diamond Springs 250 to 499 El Dorado County Sheriff Government Placerville 250 to 499 More Recycling Services Placerville 250 to 499 McClone Construction Co. Construction Shingle Springs 250 to 499 Fortune 800 Services El Dorado Hills 250 to 499 Roebbelen Contracting and Land Construction El Dorado Hills 250 to 499 El Dorado County Social Services Government Placerville 100 to 249 El Dorado County Financial Aid Government Placerville 100 to 249 El Dorado Irrigation District Public Utility Placerville 100 to 249
Source: El Dorado County Demographic Profie, CSUC Center for Economic Development, 2005.
TABLE 6: Estimated Travel-To-Work Mode Split
2000 U.S. Census Western El Dorado County Travel Mode No. of People % of Total
Drove alone 42,653 77.7% Carpooled 7,034 12.8% Public transportation 688 1.3% Bicycle 0 0.0% Walked 806 1.5% Other means (incl. motorcycle) 432 0.8% Worked at home 3,282 6.0% Total 54,895 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 18 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
COMMUTE PATTERNS
The 2000 U.S. Census results indicate that slightly more than one-half (55 percent) of the employed County residents commute to jobs within the County, while approximately 27 percent travel to nearby Sacramento County, as shown in Table 7. It is safe to assume that the majority of Western El Dorado County residents are commuting to Sacramento, Placer, Yolo, Amador, and other California Counties, while residents of the eastern portion of the County (such as South Lake Tahoe), are commuting to bordering Nevada counties, such as Douglas County and Carson City.
Sacramento County residents represent 60.6 percent of commuters traveling into El Dorado County, followed by Douglas County, Nevada (10.8 percent) and Placer County (10.6 percent). Again, it is likely that those traveling from counties in Nevada are working in South Lake Tahoe or nearby surrounding areas within the eastern portion of the County.
TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
Existing Roadway Level of Service
An important consideration in the provision of transit service is the degree and characteristics of traffic congestion in the community. Traffic congestion can benefit transit service (so long as transit services are not delayed by the congestion) in that service opportunities may be created that allow passengers quicker and more convenient trip-making. On the other hand, congestion can delay transit vehicles operating in mixed traffic, thereby reducing the attractiveness of service, as well as increasing operating costs.
To date, the Western El Dorado County area has been fortunate in avoiding widespread traffic congestion problems. There are, however, specific traffic problem areas, as presented below. Each roadway segment listed operates at Level of Service (LOS) D or worse (El Dorado County Regional Transportation Plan, 2005). The LOS scale ranges from “A” (free-flowing) to “F” (stop-and-go congestion). Roadways with existing LOS of D or below consist of the following:
*Cameron Park Drive: from Coach Lane to Green Valley Road
El Dorado Hills Boulevard: from US 50 to Lassen Lane and Andrews Drive to Francisco Drive
Green Valley Road: from the County line to Salmon Falls Road and from Seknon Falls Road to Cameron Drive
*Missouri Flat Road: from Headington Road to SR 49
Mother Lode Drive: from S. Shingle Road to Pleasant Valley Road
*Pleasant Valley Road: from SR 49(N) to Bucks Bar Road
Ponderosa Road: from US 50 to Meder Road
South Shingle Road: from Durock Road to US 50
*SR 49: from Pleasant Valley Road to Missouri Flat Road and SR 193 to County line
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 19
1.9% 1.0% 2.3% 3.1% 10.8% 10.6% 60.6% 85 8,193 8,193 100.0% 258 3.1% 155 190 872 257 San Joaquin County Nevada County Yolo County To El Dorado County from….. Douglas County , NVPlacer County Amador County 881 Sacramento County 4,963 0.4% 0.5% 0.4%0.4% Other California Counties Other States 532 6.5% 0.4% 0.4% Total 1.1% 1.2% 5.7% 5.1% 100% 26.8% 55.1% 72,093 72,093 535 0.7% 369 321 271 262 256 805 831 3,663 19,353 39,709 TABLE 7: Commute Patterns To and From El Dorado County Other California CountiesOther States 1,300Total 1.8% San Francisco County 288 Santa Clara County Alameda County San Joaquin County Amador County San Mateo County Carson City, NV Douglas County , NVPlacer County 4,130 Yolo County Sacramento County From El Dorado County to….. El Dorado County Source: 2000 U.S. Census, compiled by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 20 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
*US 50: eastbound from Bass Lake Road to Ponderosa Road, from the County line to El Dorado Hills Boulevard, and Sly Park Road to Echo Lake
According to the Regional Transportation Plan as well as the County General Plan, several roadways within the County are permitted to operate at a LOS F, which are denoted above by an asterisk (*), due to the fact that the roadways are improved to their maximum width given right-of-way and physical limitations. Additional roadway segments are also found on Cambridge Road. The 2004 General Plan included a policy that the County may not add additional segments of roadways to the list without voter approval.
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
Placerville Projects
As the City of Placerville has limited undeveloped commercially zoned property within its boundaries, most commercial projects are infill and relatively small in scale. Relatively large commercial projects consist of the following:
A new headquarters complex for El Dorado Irrigation District on Mosquito Road consisting of 15,800 square feet of office and an 11,900 square foot shop.
Grading has been completed for a 19,400 square foot office building at Main Street and Pacific Street, which will be completed in 2008/09.
A 10,120 square foot mixed residential-commercial project has been planned but not permitted along Spring Street.
A 5,000 square foot commercial retail project at Broadway and Schnell School Road is on hold while undergoing revisions.
Two office buildings of between 1,900 and 3,200 square feet are in construction along Mallard Lane.
Construction recently began on a 109 room Holiday Inn Express on Smith Flat Road just north of the Point View Road off ramp on US 50. The project includes a 1,500-foot road which will connect the freeway off ramp at Point View Drive to Smith Flat Road, Jacquier Road and the Apple Valley region.
In addition, a 45,000 square foot surgery unit planned for a site along Marshall Way.
There are also a number of approved and pending residential developments:
An Eskaton Senior Community is planned for a site on Blairs Lane west of Wiltse Road. The Eskaton project has started construction of some of the 113 single-family units. The plan also includes 64 condominiums, 60 assisted living apartments, and 40 special care units.
A subdivision is currently under development west of Mallard Lane near the water treatment facility. The project near the water treatment facility called The Ridge at Orchard Hill includes an unspecified number of single family units for seniors, with 156 houses to be built in all. Four age-non-restrictive houses are currently under construction for this project.
There are no other significant residential projects at this time.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 21
El Dorado County Projects
Unincorporated El Dorado County has experienced extensive growth in the past decade, particularly in the western portion. Numerous large bedroom communities and subdivisions have been built in El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park. Commercial growth has also increased substantially, particularly in El Dorado Hills, including large retail developments near the intersection of Latrobe Road and White Rock Road and several business parks south of US 50 along Latrobe Road. While it is anticipated that residential building will slow somewhat due to the slack housing market, requests for entitlements are currently continuing at a steady pace to ensure that plans are recorded. At least one residential developer has requested to have land rezoned as commercial. Commercial growth is expected to continue at a rapid pace. Currently vacant commercial spaces are being occupied. For example, the Bureau of Land Management is moving some operations to El Dorado Hills, and several “big-box” stores are anticipated to move to El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park. In addition, many commercial plans are in the design review stage and growth is anticipated in several key locations, including the following:
Along Green Valley Road, near Francisco Drive and near Cameron Park Drive.
Barnett Business Park off Durock Road in Shingle Springs is continuing to grow.
There is a lot of commercial activity near the airport in Cameron Park. In particular, a large project called the Cameron Park Bowl is planned on Cameron Park Drive across from the airport, with a bowling alley, arcade, and indoor miniature golf course.
A million square-foot mixed commercial project is planned along Latrobe Road several miles south of US 50 (near the current third Business Park entrance).
A commercial project is planned for Serrano Village near Bass Lake Road.
Town Center West will continue to develop, and Town Center East will build out with two additional major retailers.
North of US 50 along Missouri Flat Road, significant commercial development is planned behind K- Mart at Headington Road extension.
South of US 50 along Missouri Flat Extension, conceptual plans have been prepared for a commercial project including a Walgreen’s and Goodyear tire store.
The Red Hawk Casino, expected to employ 7,000 individuals, will be constructed in fall of 2008 in Shingle Springs.
El Dorado County planners noted that most of the conceptual plans they receive come to fruition.
Transportation and Roadway Related Projects
With the expected growth and development in the region and the current congestion along US 50, there has been a strong emphasis on planning for improvements to the highway corridor. The Sacramento Regional Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Plan (MTIP), El Dorado Regional Transportation
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 22 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Plan (RTP), and the Sacramento Regional Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) all identify projects along the US 50 Corridor in order to address current and forecast traffic levels. A summary of these planned projects are listed below:
High occupancy vehicle lanes are proposed in each direction in the median of US 50 from the El Dorado Hills Boulevard interchange to the South Shingle Road/Ponderosa Road overcrossing. Phase III of the project will extend high occupancy lanes to Greenstone Road. The project will include bridge modifications, lighting improvements, new overlay, and CHP enforcement areas.
A new interchange is planned on US 50 at Silva Valley Parkway and US 50 in El Dorado Hills, including new auxiliary lanes in both the eastbound and westbound directions.
The US 50/Bass Lake Road interchange is planned to be improved by widening off- and on-ramps, installing new traffic signals, adding auxiliary lanes, and lengthening bridges.
A new interchange on US 50 is planned for the new Red Hawk Casino project of the Shingle Springs Rancheria and will be located between Shingle Springs Drive and the Greenstone Road interchange. The purpose of the project is to provide open access to and from the Shingle Springs Rancheria and US 50.
Major reconstruction is underway for the Missouri Flat Road interchange in Placerville. The project will modify the existing interchange, widen Weber Creek Bridge, and improve bicycle and pedestrian access across US 50 at the interchange. The project will relieve existing congestion, add capacity, and provide safety improvements to the interchange and surrounding areas.
Alterations to the existing Ray Lawyer Drive overpass in Placerville are also planned, converting this to a full interchange and adding auxiliary lanes in the westbound and eastbound directions. The interchange at Forni Road and Placerville Drive will also be reconstructed and overcrossing improvements will be made on Placerville Drive as part of the project.
The “Placerville US 50 Operational Improvement Project” is an extensive project along the US 50 Corridor between Placerville Drive on the west and Clay Street on the east. Once completed in 2009, the project will provide a direct connection between Placerville Drive and Main Street that avoids the current route on US 50 and will also add turn and travel lanes, provide environmental remediation, improve traffic signals, and provide decorative bridge railings, historic lighting, fencing, and additional signage.
EXISTING PLANNING PROCESSES
A key step in any physical planning process – particularly one that considers a longer planning horizon – is the careful consideration of other ongoing planning processes in the area. This section presents a review of these recent and concurrent planning studies, and considers how each impacts the potential for future transit services.
El Dorado County General Plan
El Dorado County adopted its current General Plan in July 2004, and began implementing the plan in April 2006. The General Plan includes an introduction and nine elements. Two of the elements, Land Use, and Transportation and Circulation, are the central elements for the entire planning process. The
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 23
following is a list of goals found in the General Plan’s Transportation and Circulation Element that are relevant to transportation as addressed in the SRTP:
“To plan for and provide a unified, coordinated, and cost-efficient countywide road and highway system that ensures the safe, orderly, and efficient movement of people and goods.
To coordinate planning and implementation of roadway improvements with new development to maintain adequate levels of service on County roads.
To promote a safe and efficient transit system that provides service to all residents, including senior citizens, youths, the disabled, and those without access to automobiles that also helps to reduce congestion, and improves the environment.
To reduce travel demand on the County’s roadway system and maximize the operating efficiency of transportation facilities, thereby reducing the quantity of motor vehicle emissions and the amount of investment required in new or expanded facilities.
To provide a safe, continuous, and easily accessible non-motorized transportation system that facilitates the use of the viable alternative transportation modes.
To provide safe, continuous, and accessible sidewalks and pedestrian facilities as a viable transportation mode.”
The Land Use Element must be correlated with the Transportation and Circulation Element, according to state law. Therefore, many policies and goals included in the Land Use Element are designed to address land use patterns which are directly related to circulation and transportation issues. One transit-related goal from this element is:
“Protection and conservation of existing communities and rural centers; creation of new sustainable communities; curtailment of urban/suburban sprawl; location and intensity of future development consistent with the availability of adequate infrastructure; and mixed and balanced uses that promote use of alternate transportation systems.”
The County has also set forth a policy related to this goal in which a joint County/City task force is established to develop complementary land use designation, zoning, transportation, andfunding plans to protect existing and to encourage new developments. By doing so, the area will be developed in an organized manner and will have the opportunity to better address regional transportation and transit needs accordingly.
Elk Grove – Rancho Cordova – El Dorado Connector
The Elk Grove-Rancho Cordova-El Dorado Connector is a future project in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan for 2025. This multi-modal transportation corridor will connect the three areas and will link residential areas and employment centers. In addition to roadway facilities, bicycle, transit and pedestrian facilities are included as travel options through the corridor. The Elk Grove-Rancho Cordova- El Dorado Connector Concept Plan was developed as a result of the projected growth of the Sacramento and El Dorado areas. Specifically, Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) has forecast that
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 24 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
the number of households in south/east Sacramento County and Western El Dorado County will increase by approximately 140 percent by 2032 (based on 2005 data), while employment is expected to nearly double. The following bulleted items provide details on the project’s intent and strategies:
The connector is designed to address the loss of access to job centers due to increased growth (both in population and employment) and concerns regarding the effect of development on open space and habitat preservation.
The project will improve access, mobility, and develop new connections between the three areas; preserve open space and wildlife habitat; enhance economic vitality; and bring jurisdictions together to maximize funding.
Five alternatives were developed, all of which address roadway facilities, transit facilities and services, non-motorized travel facilities, and open space/land use priorities. Transit features are intended to provide more travel choices and to reduce the necessity to travel by automobile alone. Fixed-route bus service on major arterials and key corridors (trunk line service), commuter/express service and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service were examined.
Sacramento Regional Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)
The Sacramento Region MTP for 2025 outlines 20 years of improvements to El Dorado County’s regional transportation system, including the following:
Operational improvements on US 50 from West Placerville Drive to Bedford. Completion Year 2009
Widen shoulders on SR 49 near Ore Court Road to China Hill Road. Completion Year 2010
On US 50 through Camino, conduct preliminary planning, engineering and environmental analysis for the conversion of the expressway to a freeway and future construction of a new interchange. Completion Year 2015
Realign Main Street in Placerville to provide two one-way roadways from Washington Street to Broadway at the US 50 westbound off-ramp. Completion Year 2017
Extend the two-lane road in the City of Placerville on Point View Drive from Broadway to Smith Flat Road. Completion Year 2008
Miscellaneous road widening projects on Forni Road, Washington Street, Cambridge Road, Cameron Park Drive, Durock Road, El Dorado Hills Boulevard, Green Valley Road, Latrobe Road, Missouri Flat Road, Mother Lode Drive, Pleasant Valley Road, Silva Valley Parkway, South Shingle Road, and White Rock Road. Completion Years 2007–2025
New two-lane road on Country Club Drive from Bass Lake Road to Merrychase Drive parallel to US 50 and from Bass Lake Road to Silva Valley Parkway parallel to US 50. Completion Year 2022
Replace existing bridge on Green Valley Road at Tennessee Creek. Completion Year 2010
New two-lane divided roadway from Missouri Flat Road to Pleasant Valley Road/SR 49 at Fowler Lane. Completion Year 2010
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 25
New two-lane road on Palmer Drive between Wild Chaparral Drive and Palmer Drive. Completion Year 2010
Intersection improvements at Buck’s Bar Road and Pleasant Valley Road. Completion Year 2019
New four-lane undivided road from the County line to Arrowhead Drive on Saratoga Way. Completion Year 2010
At US 50 and El Dorado Hills Boulevard, new auxiliary lanes halfway to the east Silva Valley Road interchange and auxiliary lane westbound to the County line. Completion Year 2010
Miscellaneous interchange improvements on Bass Lake Road, Cameron Park Drive, El Dorado Road, Missouri Flat Road, and Ponderosa Road. Completion Year 2008–2010
Purchase an additional 12 commuter buses (4 buses every three years) and replace after ten years. Completion Year 2025
Construction of Central Park-and-Ride facility in Diamond Springs. Completion Year 2008
Purchase an additional 40 buses (10 buses every four years) to provide commuter services. Acquisition Year 2025
Sacramento Regional Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP)
The MTIP includes funded transportation improvement projects which are scheduled for implementation in the short-term. The MTIP must be consistent with the goals and long-term objectives of the MTP. The SACOG 2007/09 MTIP currently calls for the following roadway improvements relating to transit in Western El Dorado County:
Silva Valley/US 50 interchange – construct new interchange with overpass and ramps at US 50 and Silva Valley Road; add auxiliary lanes halfway to the next interchange westbound to El Dorado Hills and auxiliary lane eastbound connecting existing truck climbing lane. Completion Year 2016
US 50 Operational Improvements – (1) construct EB turn and auxiliary lane at East Placerville Drive to Bedford Avenue; (2) construct two-lane connection from existing eastern terminus of Placerville Drive to the existing western terminus of Main Street; (3) improve traffic signals at US 50/Canal Street, SR 49/Bedford Avenue and US 50/Spring Street intersections; (4) widen local streets intersections for vehicle storage; (5) lengthen existing US 50 left turn pockets for vehicle storage; (6) close the US 50 eastbound off ramp at Main Street, and (7) construct various context sensitive solutions and TEA features. Completion Year 2009
US 50 Western Placerville interchanges – reconstruct existing Forni Road/Placerville Drive interchange; convert Ray Lawyer Drive overpass to full interchange; add westbound and eastbound auxiliary lanes between Ray Lawyer Drive and Placerville Drive and minor access road changes. Completion Year 2012
El Dorado Hills Boulevard/Francisco Drive Intersection Modifications – realignment/reconfiguration and signalization of the El Dorado Hills Boulevard/Francisco Drive/Brittany Way intersection. Completion Year 2008
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 26 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Pleasant Valley/Missouri Flat Connector – Construct a new two-lane divided roadway from Missouri Flat, north of China Garden, to Pleasant Valley Road/SR 49 at Fowler Lane. Completion Year 2009
Saratoga Way Extension – Construct a new two-lane road from end of Saratoga Way to the County line. Completion Year 2010
Add HOV lanes from El Dorado Hills Boulevard to South Shingle Springs/Ponderosa Road. Completion Year 2008
Reconstruct Missouri Flat interchange at US 50. Completion Year 2008
Realign and widen White Rock Road from the Sacramento/El Dorado County line to Latrobe Road from two to four lanes. Completion Year 2007
El Dorado County Regional Transportation Plan
The El Dorado County 2005-2025 Regional Transportation Plan was developed to address regional transportation issues and needs for a 20-year period and includes policy direction, actions, and funding recommendations. The following are proposed projects designed to implement the policies set forth in the document with respect to the regional roadway network in Western El Dorado County:
HOV lane extensions on US 50 from the El Dorado Hills Boulevard undercrossing to the South Shingle Road/Ponderosa Road overcrossing.
US 50/Missouri Flat interchange improvements, including modifying the interchange and widening Weber Creek Bridge.
Western Placerville interchange improvements on US 50 from Placerville/Forni Road interchange to the Ray Lawyer Drive overcrossing.
Placerville operational improvements on US 50 from West Placerville Drive to Bedford.
Construction of a two-way left turn lane, installation of a stop sign, and associated bicycle and pedestrian facilities on SR 49 in Coloma from the South Fork American River Bridge to Marshall Road.
Construction of a left-turn pocket on SR 193 about 10km at Sliger Mine Road.
Widen and add shoulders on SR 49 between Ore Court and China Hill Road.
Improvements on Placerville Drive.
Realign the Clay Street and Cedar Ravine intersection to a 4-way configuration, and reconstruct the bridge and Ivy House parking lot.
Improvements on the westbound US 50 on/off ramps and signalization at Cambridge Road, Merry Chase Drive and US 50.
Operations safety analysis and improvement on Cameron Park Drive/Palmer Drive and Green Valley Road.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 27
Construction of left turn lanes at the Cameron Park Drive and Mira Loma Drive intersection.
Construction of left turn lanes and signalize the intersection of Missouri Flat Road and El Dorado Road.
Widen the two-way left turn at Mother Lode Drive from South Shingle to the French Road intersection.
Road rehabilitation in the City of Placerville and El Dorado County.
Enhance aesthetic architectural elements along US 50 in Placerville.
Remove the abandoned eastbound off-ramp at Main Street and reestablish riparian vegetation on US 50 near Hangtown Creek.
Provide transit service to light rail (LRT) in Folsom.
Expand service on Pollock Pines, El Dorado/Diamond Springs, Folsom Lake College, and Cameron Park routes.
Expand commuter service to meet increasing demand.
Convert Placerville/Hangtown Shuttle to fixed-route and provide complementary ADA service.
Expand DAR service.
Contract for provision of weekly Georgetown/Cool/Pilot Hill service to Auburn.
Revise the commuter schedule.
Expansion of Placerville – light rail in Folsom and reconfiguration of the Cameron Park route.
Continuation of direct Sacramento Commuter bus service.
Establishment of an El Dorado Hills local route.
Continuation of DAR services.
Expansion of local Hangtown Shuttle, Pollock Pines and Folsom Lake College (FLC) routes.
Pursue transit extension to El Dorado County.
Increased bicycle rack capacity on transit buses.
Downtown Placerville Plaza Transit stop.
Monitoring of ridership on the planned Folsom LRT extension.
Coordination with schools and transit service.
Coordination with neighboring transit agencies.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 28 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
El Dorado County Long Range Transit Plan
The El Dorado County Long Range Transit Plan (LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2003) presents specific service and financial recommendations, both short (FY 2003/04 through 2007/08) and long range (extending to 2025), for the EDCTA and the El Dorado County Transportation Commission (EDCTC). A selection of transit related recommendations are as follows:
Long Range Transit Plan
Continuation of expanded DAR services.
Expansion of Placerville-Folsom light rail (LRT) service to a minimum of hourly services between LRT and Placerville Station.
Continuation of direct Sacramento Commuter bus service subsequent to the expansion of LRT service.
Expansion of local Placerville, Pollock Pines, and Folsom Lake College routes.
Reconfiguration of the Cameron Park route to coordinate with Folsom LRT service along the US 50 Corridor.
Establishment of an El Dorado Hills local route.
Expand the EDCTA fleet to accommodate growth in services.
Replace vehicles as necessary.
Conversion to low-sulfur diesel fuel as the primary fuel source for the EDCTA fleet.
Automatic Vehicle Location, Automatic Passenger Counting, and advance passenger fare technologies will be implemented.
Park-and-Ride facilities will be expanded, focusing on the El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park areas.
The existing EDCTA Administrative/Maintenance Facility will continue to be the operational base for the system and improvements will be made as needed to accommodate expansion in staff and fleet size.
The primary passenger facility for the local routes will be the Missouri Flat Transit Center. Placerville Station will also serve as an important facility for the Pollock Pines, Hangtown Shuttle, and extended Folsom/LRT routes, as well as for intercity transit service.
EDCTA will continue to upgrade passenger amenities at bus stops.
Short Range Transit Plan
Convert Hangtown Shuttle to a fixed-route and provide complementary ADA service.
Expand service on Pollock Pines, El Dorado/Diamond Springs, Folsom Lake College and Cameron Park routes.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 29
Provide transit service to planned LRT in Folsom in 2005.
Expand DAR services.
Contract with Placer CTSA for provision of weekly Georgetown/Cool/Pilot Hill service to Auburn.
Expand commuter service to meet increasing demand.
Revise the commuter schedule.
Fleet replacement and expansion, including one wheelchair-accessible cutaway van for fixed-route service, one wheelchair accessible cutaway van for the DAR, and one medium bus for the Folsom light rail service.
Implement improvements to EDCTA administration/maintenance center.
Improve office computer network.
Develop and improve Missouri Flat Transfer Center.
Continue to improve bus stop amenities.
Review construction plans and schedule priorities for pedestrian and bicycle improvements.
Expand park-and-ride facilities.
Implement the Demand Response Dispatching program.
Consider Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) technology.
US 50 Corridor Short Term Transit Plan
As a result of increased growth in El Dorado County, heavy commute traffic exists on US 50 between Sacramento and El Dorado County. In order to address these issues, a US 50 Corridor Short Term Transit Plan was developed in 2006, which provides short term improvements to be implemented within the next three to five years. Recommendations from the report are as follows:
Provide two consistent routes into the Downtown area and drop any current stops that have fewer than five daily boardings and alightings, or that are less than two blocks from one another.
Provide an additional run in the morning and afternoon, and provide additional “express” runs.
Revise routing at Park-and-Ride lots.
Provide EDCTA commuter bus connection to light rail, using one bus operating between Missouri Flat Road and the Iron Point Light Rail Station.
Discontinue the Rancho Cordova commuter bus service.
Promote a vanpool service and/or have the EDCTA assist others in a vanpool program that serves Rancho Cordova.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 30 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
These recommendations were implemented in Fiscal Year (FY) 2006/07.
Folsom El Dorado Corridor Transit Strategy
The strategy is a compilation of “work papers” which present potential high capacity transit alignments that will serve the communities along US 50 between Folsom and El Dorado Hills. The preferred alignment that pertains to El Dorado County enters the County from the Southern Pacific right of way and either continues along White Rock Road to the Silva Valley/US 50 interchange or into the El Dorado Hills Business Park. The strategy sites several “key actions for right of way preservation and project development” that relate to the SRTP update:
Establish or modify current bus routes that mimic the possible future east-west transit line.
Participate with Folsom in the examination of transit options in the area south of US 50.
As the Elk Grove/Rancho Cordova/El Dorado Connector study progresses, consider how the east- west transit line planning should be integrated.
DAR Zone Assessment Study
The DAR Zone Assessment Study for El Dorado County (LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., October 2001) provided the following recommendations:
Provide Zone 2 service to El Dorado Hills, with potential improvement to Zone 1 service for both El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park
Eliminate service to areas requiring more than $60 subsidy per passenger-trip
Establish zone fares and increase fare levels
Modify on-time standard from 20 to 30 minutes
Increase the maximum in-vehicle travel time standard, and strive to increase passengers per vehicle- trip
Establish a formal service cancellation policy
Establish a standard and monitor trip turndowns
Implement automated dispatch scheduling software
Many of the recommendations have been implemented.
Triennial Performance Audit
In July 2006, the Triennial Performance Audit of the El Dorado County Transit Authority report was completed. This report detailed seven recommendations:
Present summarized data on complaints and compliments to the TAC and Authority Board in order to form trends in customer service and identify potential deficiencies.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 31
Adopt an on-time performance standard for the fixed-route and DAR services.
Report the number of road calls by service type, such as local fixed-route, commuter bus, and demand response.
Consider developing a fare revenue deviation policy that would include establishing a range of acceptable variance between projected and actual revenues.
Consider the TDA provision allowing flexibility for the exclusion of new services from the farebox recovery ratio.
Evaluate the fare structure system-wide on a regular basis to enable the agency to more effectively plan for and manage existing and future transit services.
Coordinate with EDCTC on the development of transit performance targets for its commuter, local fixed-route, and DAR services.
AIR QUALITY
For air quality planning purposes, the west slope of El Dorado County is located in the Mountain Air Basin. The primary responsibility for air pollution control within the study area lies with the El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District.
El Dorado County is designated as a serious non-attainment area for ozone under both federal and state standards, as well as non-attainment for PM10 under state standards. It has been fairly well established that this poor condition is a result of the topography and meteorology of the area. Mountains and hills affect regional airflows which in turn concentrate high pollutants and hinder dispersion, inversion layers occur which trap pollutants close to the ground, and general climatic conditions in the summer provide conditions that promote the formation of ozone. Studies have determined that the ozone levels in the Mountain Counties Air Basin (MCAB) can be attributed to the pollutants generated in the Bay Area, Sacramento Valley, and San Joaquin Valley, which are transported via strong upwind air flows from the Central Valley to the west, particularly in the summer months. Further, the MCAB and the California Air Resources Board (ARB) have determined that these transported pollutants are primarily responsible for the non-attainment of the state and federal ozone standards within the area.
FINDINGS OF EL DORADO COUNTY’S UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS
The Transportation Development Act (TDA) specifies that recipients of TDA funding conduct an annual assessment of transit needs within their jurisdiction before TDA funds are allotted to streets and roads. This assessment consists of two major steps: the identification of “unmet transit needs,” and a determination of whether these needs are “reasonable to meet.” The EDCTC has defined unmet transit needs as:
“Those public transportation services necessary, but unprovided for individuals to maintain a minimum standard of living. This may include trips necessary for medical and dental services, shopping, employment, personal business, education, social services, and recreation. Unmet transit needs are also those needs required to comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.”
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 32 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Furthermore, unmet transit needs are found to be reasonable to meet if all of the following conditions prevail:
“Services, which if implemented or funded could meet a 10 percent farebox recovery as specified in the California Code of Regulations. A minimum of twelve months is a reasonable time for a demonstration project to be evaluated.”
“Unmet Needs may also consist of basic capital improvements that make transit more amenable to riders.”
“Service which, if implemented, would not cause the responsible operator to incur expenditures in excess of the maximum amount of Local Transportation Funds, State Transit Assistance Funds, Federal Transit Administration Funds, and passenger fares which may be available to the claimant.”
Review of the findings regarding unmet transit needs can provide insight into transit improvements requested by the public. For both 2005 and 2007, 100 percent of the TDA funds were being used by transit and therefore no unmet needs were required to be determined. In 2006, the County did not find any unmet transit needs that were reasonable to meet. The following is a brief summary of the unmet needs issues for the past three years.
Although no official unmet needs hearing was required in 2005, EDCTC held a public hearing to obtain public comments and input about transit issues in El Dorado County. The comments received at the meeting are noted below:
The DAR service should be able to do multiple day scheduling for those who have consistent schedules and use the service regularly.
DAR round-trip transportation needs should be prioritized.
Additional regular DAR service to the Camino Heights/Pollock Pines area should be implemented.
A request for re-establishment of the former service to the Carson Ridge Apartments.
A request for DAR service to be available to disabled persons outside of regular transit service hours, as many persons who are dependent upon the service may have evening or weekend jobs.
For 2006, EDCTC prepared an unmet transit needs report, with staff recommending a finding that “there are no unmet transit needs that are reasonable to meet.” At the public meeting, of the 34 comments received, approximately 5 were considered unmet transit needs that were not reasonable to meet. A summary of these comments follows:
Request to extend evening service hours in Cameron Park to 6:00 PM. or 7:00 PM
Request for fixed-route service in El Dorado Hills with shuttle connections to LRT in Folsom
Request for a fixed-route within El Dorado Hills
Request for connecting an El Dorado Hills service between Cameron Park, Folsom Lake College – El Dorado Center, El Dorado County Fairgrounds, and downtown Placerville
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 33
Lack of DAR service to the Swansboro neighborhood and, due to recent development in the area, recommendation of a re-analysis of the DAR zones for potential service to the neighborhood
In 2007, as there were no surplus TDA funds available for local streets and roads in El Dorado County; it was not required that the “unmet needs process” be conducted. Regardless, a public hearing was held in order to obtain comments regarding needed transit services, pursuant to TDA Section 99238.5, which are summarized below:
A representative of the Vision Coalition of El Dorado Hills discussed the need for youth transportation to and from the Teen Center. It was noted that their grant funds available to develop teen programs in the area that could be utilized. It was requested that a sub-committee be formed to discuss and implement the shuttle service.
A comment on the need for transportation for youth in Pollock Pines to and from school, work, activities, and appointments.
A request for later bus service, preferably after 5:30 PM
A comment on the need for increased availability and expansion of DAR services for seniors, youth, and persons with special needs.
Inadequate access to existing transit stops – current roadway designs do not provide safe pedestrian and bicycle routes and crossings.
A request to consider a scheduled bus route serving high-density housing near Cameron Park Drive and Green Valley Road and possibly to connect to the Folsom Lake College El Dorado Center. Service to Kaiser Permanente in Folsom, connections to light rail, and Old Town Folsom were also noted.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 34 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Chapter 3
Transportation Services
BACKGROUND
Transportation has always played an important role in Western El Dorado County. From its founding as a mining and agricultural area, Western El Dorado County has been dependent upon transportation of both goods and residents to markets and opportunities outside of the County. Modern public transit services have been available in Western El Dorado County only since the late 1970s. Service was provided to the elderly and disabled population of greater Placerville until 1980, when it was opened to the general public. In recent years, a well-established public transit system has developed, serving both the Placerville urban area and regionally. The creation of the El Dorado County Transit Authority (EDCTA) in 1993 has proven to be an important milestone in the provision of an effective and well-accepted public transit system.
Western El Dorado County transit services are provided through a joint powers agreement between the County of El Dorado and City of Placerville. The EDCTA is governed by a five-member board of directors, three members appointed by the County Board of Supervisors and two members appointed by the Placerville City Council. Additionally, a transit advisory committee, made up of ten members representing both private and public interests, is responsible for reviewing the operation of the transit system, monitoring levels of service based upon budgets, and providing advice to the transit director. The transit director supervises a staff of approximately 54 regular employees, including the operations manager, office manager, fiscal administration manager, office and financial staff, transportation supervisors, a transit services assistant, transit dispatchers, a transit trainer, mechanics, as well as 31 full- time equivalent (FTE) transit drivers. EDCTA’s internal organization structure is presented in Figure 8.
EDCTA operates a wide range of services including local deviated fixed-routes, demand response, intercity commuter service, and contracted social service transportation. The following describes each of the existing services in detail, while Figures 9 and 10 present the local routes and commuter routes graphically.
EXISTING EL DORADO TRANSIT SERVICES
Local Routes
Placerville Routes – EDCTA operates an East route and a West route along the US 50 Corridor in the City of Placerville. These routes, which replaced the previous deviated route Hangtown Shuttle service, provide fixed-route service mainly along the US 50 Corridor between the Missouri Flat Transfer Center and Point View Drive on the eastern side of Placerville. The East and West routes are essentially directional trips of the same loop, although the routes do serve different stops between Spring Street and Point View Drive. Service is provided Monday through Friday on one hour headways from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, and Saturday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Some important stops along the Placerville routes are: Human Services, El Dorado County Fairgrounds Park-and-Ride, M.O.R.E. workshop, Marshall Hospital, Rite Aid, and Home Depot. Request stops are available along Green Valley Road, Cold Springs Road, Clay Street, and Cedar Ravine Road. The general public one-way fare for all local routes is $1.10, and senior and disabled passengers are charged $0.55 per one-way trip. Monthly passes are $33 for general public, $21 for senior and disabled passengers, and $25 for students. Persons age 80 and older ride free. As discussed below, complementary paratransit service is provided in Placerville, and the Placerville routes do not deviate.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 35
(2) Transit Trainer Accounting Technician I Manager Fiscal Administration Office Analyst Assistant II Information Technology Bilingual (1) Assistant Office Manager Transit Services Office Assistant II Transit Director EDCTA Board of Directors Transit Dispatchers (5) Maintenance Technician (2) Senior Mechanic Operations Manager Equipment Equipment Mechanic I/II (3) (31 FTE) Transportation Transit Drivers Supervisors (2) F IGURE 8: El Dorado County Transit Authority Approved Organization Chart Fiscal Year 2007 / 08
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 36 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 37
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 38 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
The Placerville Express is a new route established in FY 2006/07 which serves the same general vicinity as the East and West routes but with only 5 stops in each direction. This route, which was established to reduce travel times across Placerville, begins at the Placerville Station, and ends at the Missouri Flat Transfer Center. The service is available Monday through Friday from 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM. The local fare rates above apply to the Placerville Express route.
Pollock Pines Route – The Pollock Pines route provides deviated fixed-route transit service along the US 50 Corridor between the Placerville Station Transfer Center in eastern Placerville, the Camino area, and the Safeway Plaza on Pony Express Trail in Pollock Pines. Service is provided Monday through Saturday between 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM. On the first westbound run of the day, the Pollock Pines bus makes 1 trip to the Missouri Flat Transfer Center at 7:40 AM. Route deviations are provided for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) passengers up to three-quarters of one mile from the designated route. ADA route deviation requests can be scheduled the previous service day, though same day requests are accommodated when possible. There is a $0.25 additional fare charge per trip per person for off-route deviations. The general public one-way fare is $1.10, and senior and disabled passengers are charged $0.55 per one-way trip. Monthly passes are $33 for general public, $21 for senior and disabled passengers, and $25 for students.
Diamond Springs/Folsom Lake College Routes – The Diamond Springs route begins at the Missouri Flat Transfer Center and follows a clockwise loop around Diamond Springs on Pleasant Valley Road, El Dorado Road and Mother Lode Drive back to the Missouri Flat Transfer Center. The bus then alternates with the Cameron Park bus to operate the 25 minute out and back run to Folsom Lake College. The Diamond Springs route itself takes about 30 minutes to operate as does the Folsom Lake College extension. Service for both routes is provided hourly from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Monday through Saturday. In addition to the College, the Diamond Springs/Folsom Lake College route serves the Diamond Springs Mobile Home Park, El Dorado Transit Offices, and the Child Development Center. Route deviations are provided for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) passengers up to three-quarters of a mile from the designated route. There is a $0.25 additional fare charge per trip per person for off- route deviations. ADA route deviation requests can be scheduled the previous service day, though same day requests are accommodated when possible. Non-ADA request stops are also available for a few areas off the route. The general public one-way fare is $1.10, and senior and disabled passengers are charged $0.55 per one-way trip. Monthly passes are $33 for general public, $21 for senior and disabled passengers, and $25 for students.
Cameron Park/Folsom Lake College Route – The Cameron Park route begins at the Missouri Flat Transfer center in Placerville, follows Mother Lode Drive and Durock Road to Shingle Springs and then makes a counterclockwise loop along Cameron Park Drive, Cambridge Road, and Country Club in Cameron Park and returns via Mother Lode Drive to the Missouri Flat Transfer Center. In the past, one bus operated the combined Diamond Springs/Cameron Park/Folsom Lake College route. Now a second bus is used to operate the expanded Cameron Park Route and both the Cameron Park bus and Diamond Springs bus alternately operate the Folsom Lake College route on hourly headways. Request stops on the Cameron Park route are available at Ponderosa High School, Cameron Park Library, and the Cambridge Park-and-Ride lot. This route also serves Marshall Medical and the Ponderosa Park-and-Ride. The Cameron Park route operates 7 runs (with approximately two-hour headways) from 6:25 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Saturday. The 6:25 AM run and the 2:00 PM run are express runs with limited stops and therefore do not offer three-quarter mile deviations for ADA passengers. The remaining 5 runs offer route deviations like the other local routes. The fare structure on the Cameron Park route is identical to the other local routes.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 39
ADA Complementary Paratransit for Placerville East and West Routes – This service is compliant with the transportation section of the ADA and is only available to persons who are unable to use the Placerville East and West fixed-routes. EDCTA complimentary paratransit provides curb-to-curb transit service during the same hours and days as the Placerville East and West fixed-routes within three-quarters of a mile from the fixed-routes. Passengers may reserve a ride up to 14 days in an advance. This service has extremely low ridership, only 3 to 5 passengers per month. The ADA Complementary Paratransit fare is $1.50 per one-way passenger trip. As the other local routes allow for deviations up to three-quarters of a mile from the fixed-route, ADA paratransit service is not required to complement those routes.
Rural Routes
El Dorado Transit currently provides two rural routes that connect small outlying communities to the medical and commercial services in Placerville one day a week.
Grizzly Flat Route – The Grizzly Flat route provides two round-trips on Thursdays between Prospectors Plaza on Missouri Flat Road and Grizzly Flat Road southeast of Placerville. Eastbound runs depart at 7:50 AM and 3:00 PM, and westbound runs depart at 8:26 AM and 3:36 PM. The afternoon eastbound run from Grizzly Flat to Placerville is by request only. Route deviations are provided for ADA passengers up to three-quarters of one mile from the designated route. ADA route deviation requests can be scheduled the previous service day, though same day requests are accommodated when possible. The general public one-way fare is $2, and senior and disabled passengers are charged $1 per one-way trip. Monthly passes are $33 for general public, $21 for senior and disabled passengers, and $25 for students. There is a $0.25 additional fare charge per trip per person for off-route deviations.
South County Route – This rural route began service in FY 2005/06 as a demonstration project to connect the communities of Mt. Aukum, Somerset, and Fairplay to Placerville. One morning and one afternoon round trip are operated between the Missouri Flat Transfer Center, Bistro/Fairplay in Somerset, and Prospector’s Plaza in Placerville on Tuesdays. Bus stops south of the Pioneer Park Community Center are by request only on the afternoon run.
Commuter Services
The Sacramento Commuter Service provides 12 different routes and time schedules to destinations in downtown Sacramento. These routes were recently adjusted as recommended in the US 50 Corridor Transit Plan. Morning departures from El Dorado County locations are scheduled from 5:20 AM to 8:00 AM, and afternoon eastbound departures from Sacramento occur from 2:27 PM to 6:15 PM. A reverse commuting service is also offered for persons commuting from Sacramento to El Dorado County destinations (using bus runs that would otherwise be operated as “deadhead” trips to position buses and drivers). Reverse commutes are provided on Routes 6, 7, and 10, Monday through Friday. Morning reverse commute runs depart Sacramento at 7:00 AM and 8:57 AM. Afternoon reverse commute runs depart El Dorado County at 2:00 PM, 4:15 PM, and 5:35 PM. The Commuter routes serve the El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride, Cambridge Road Park-and-Ride, Rodeo Road Park-and-Ride, Ponderosa Road Park- and-Ride, El Dorado County Fairgrounds Park-and-Ride, and Placerville Station on Mosquito Road.
The Commuter service fare structure is as follows:
One-way cash fare, $4 20-ride ticket book, $80 Commuter monthly pass, $144 Combo Commuter and Sacramento Regional Transit Monthly Pass, $170.50
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 40 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
El Dorado Transit commuters may purchase a $0.25 transfer for use on Sacramento Regional Transit (Sac RT) bus and light rail. On return trips a Sac RT transfer will be valid for $1 off the commuter fare.
The Sacramento Commuter service uses a total of 10 vehicles. All buses are based out of the EDCTA facility in Diamond Springs. In the morning, 9 vehicles operate 11 commuter routes and 2 reverse commuter routes. All but 4 buses, which are parked in Sacramento during the day, travel back to the EDCTA operations facility after the morning run. Drivers of the 4 buses left in Sacramento are shuttled back to El Dorado County in the returning buses. In the afternoon, 6 buses travel west to Sacramento to operate 12 Commuter routes, and 3 reverse commuter routes in conjunction with the 4 buses which stayed behind in Sacramento during the day.
Iron Point Connector (IPC)
Implemented in July 2006, the IPC route provides direct service from El Dorado County to Folsom with connections to Sac RT light rail on weekdays. This route runs every two hours beginning at 5:40 AM and ending at 7:27 PM from the Missouri Flat Transfer Center to the Iron Point Light Rail Station in Folsom. Other stops include the El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride, Cambridge Road Park-and-Ride, Ponderosa Road Park-and-Ride, El Dorado County Fairgrounds Park-and-Ride, Kaiser Permanente, and the Folsom Lake College Folsom Campus.
The IPC fare structure is as follows:
One-way cash fare, $2.50 Fare for FLC Students with Student Access Card and CSUS Students with ID, $1.50 20-ride ticket book, $50 Monthly pass, $90 Combo IPC and Sac RT Monthly Pass, $122.50
IPC monthly passes are also valid on El Dorado Transit’s local bus routes. El Dorado Transit riders can purchase a $0.25 transfer for Sac RT light rail, but the full fare must be paid for transfers to the Folsom Stage Lines.
Dial-A-Ride
The Dial-A-Ride (DAR) service is a demand response service designed for elderly and disabled passengers, with limited access available for the general public. The service is available on a first-come, first-serve basis Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:30 AM and 5:00 PM, and between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturdays and Sundays. The DAR service area consists of 12 geographic zones throughout the western slope of El Dorado County. As shown in Figure 11, pickups are available in parts of El Dorado Hills, Pollock Pines, Garden Valley, and SR 49 at Crystal Boulevard. Ride requests may be made on weekdays between 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM up to three days in advance. Preference in scheduling is provided to elderly and disabled passengers, with other ride requests accommodated on a space available basis starting at 3:00 PM on the day prior to the ride request. In addition, service to the general public is not provided to the most outlying zones.
The fare structure for the DAR service is based primarily on trip length, the cost to EDCTA of providing the trip, and passenger type. This fare structure is designed to ensure that all passengers pay roughly equivalent proportions of total cost. Fares vary by zone. Fares are $1.50 for seniors and disabled and $3 for general public in the zones along the US 50 Corridor between El Dorado Hills and Placerville, $3 and
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 41
FIGURE 11
El Dorado County Transit Authority Dial-A-Ride Zone System Map
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 42 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
$5, respectively for the surrounding tier of zones, and $5 for senior/disabled rides in the most outlying zones. In addition, seniors or disabled persons pay $0.50 for every zone boundary crossed, while the general public pays $1.
SAC-MED Non-Emergency Medical Appointment Transportation
The SAC-MED service was implemented on October 1, 2002, as a 12-month demonstration project. SAC-MED is a public shared-ride non-emergency medical appointment transportation service for seniors, disabled, and general public passengers. Ride requests are scheduled on a first-come, first-served basis, and confirmed with a call back by 4:00 PM the day before the scheduled ride. Reservations for SAC- MED must be made four days in advance and can be scheduled up to 14 days in advance. The service operates Tuesdays and Thursdays, with the Sacramento County destination arrival times dependent upon the number of appointments scheduled for that day. Passenger medical appointment times must be between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM. The fare is a flat rate of $5 per boarding. SAC-MED pick up and drop off locations in El Dorado County are:
Placerville Station Missouri Fat Transfer Center Ponderosa Road Park-and-Ride Bel Air Shopping Center Bus Shelter El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride
Contracted Social Services
EDCTA also provides a range of contracted activity program services:
The Senior Day Care Center is located in Placerville, and operated by the El Dorado County Community Services Department. This program provides close supervision and assistance with a full day of scheduled therapeutic activities for homebound individuals with mental and physical impairments. The Center provides services to approximately 44 seniors each week. Subscription DAR service to and from the Center is provided by El Dorado Transit. Up to 6 EDCTA cutaway vans at a time are used to serve the Senior Day Care program.
Alta California Regional Center assists persons with developmental disabilities, including infants at risk and their families by providing and securing those services and supports necessary to maximize opportunities and choices. Alta contracts with public transit, private taxi companies and the school district to provide transportation for their consumers in the Placerville area. Alta is the entity who organizes contract transportation with EDCTA for the operation of the M.O.R.E routes (discussed below) and DAR trips to employment opportunities in Rancho Cordova for a group of Alta consumers.
Mother Lode Rehabilitation Enterprises, Inc. (M.O.R.E.) provides a variety of services including vocational training, job placement, independent living training, semi-independent residential program, community integration, life skills, and social/vocational counseling and behavior management as needed. In addition to its contract with EDCTA for transportation, M.O.R.E. operates a 15-passenger van providing daily transportation to 12 clients residing at Pathways, a group home in Placerville. Transportation is provided between M.O.R.E. and Pathways, and to and from shopping, jobs or recreational activities. M.O.R.E service requires up to seven EDCTA cutaway vans at peak times.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 43
Special Event Services
In addition, EDCTA operates several special event shuttle services over the course of the year:
The Apple Hill service is a special high-profile service providing shuttle transportation for visitors to the Apple Hill ranches every weekend during the month of October. It is intended to address traffic and parking issues. Shuttle buses depart the Schnell School parking lot from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM every 15 to 30 minutes. This fare-free service is financed through grants from the El Dorado County Air Quality Management District and the Apple Hill Growers Association.
El Dorado Transit is contracted with the El Dorado County Fair Association to provide the El Dorado County Fair Shuttle. The shuttle transports fair patrons between remote parking sites and the fair during all hours of the event. El Dorado Transit has received grant funding from the El Dorado County Air Quality Management District for this service.
The Main Street Shuttle primarily transports prospective jurors between free parking at the Placerville Station and the Courthouse in downtown on Tuesdays from 8:00 AM to 1:00 PM. This fare free service was originally designed as a parking shuttle for the downtown Placerville area to offset the loss of parking resulting from the US Highway 50 construction project. Limited funding for the shuttle has been provided by Caltrans. El Dorado Transit and City of Placerville staff are in the process of negotiating additional funding.
The seasonal Holly Jolly Trolley shuttles shoppers, children, and choirs free of charge between the Placerville Station parking lot and businesses along Main Street in downtown Placerville from approximately December 2nd to 23rd. The trolley stops at the Mountain Democrat, Off Broadway, Placerville Station, 681 Main Street, Sweetie Pies, former city hall, the post office, and the Gold Country Inn every 15 to 20 minutes from 11:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
EXISTING SERVICE CALENDAR
EDCTA does not operate on the following holidays:
New Year’s Day Martin Luther King, Jr. Day President’s Day Memorial Day Independence Day Labor Day Veteran’s Day Thanksgiving Day and the day after Thanksgiving Christmas Day
Limited services (which include Saturday service hours on local routes, Sacramento Commuter Route 6 with service to all park-and-ride lots and ADA Complementary Paratransit Service and limited DAR service), are provided on the following days:
Columbus Day Christmas Eve Any regular service day designated to be a limited service day because of adverse weather conditions
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 44 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
EXISTING FARE MEDIA
Table 8 below presents the fare structure for each specific service offered. As presented, general public fares are $1.10 or $2 for local deviated fixed-routes, between $3 and $5 for DAR, and between $2.50 and $4 on the commuter routes. Elderly and disabled fares are generally one-half of these amounts on the local deviated fixed-routes. Students K-12 receive discounted monthly passes on the local deviated fixed- route service.
EDCTA and Sac RT entered into a formal transfer agreement in 1999 that allowed EDCTA to operate within Sacramento County and offer the discounted Combo Commuter and Sac RT Monthly Pass. Amendments to the transfer agreement in 2005 dictate that Sac RT will accept transfers from EDCTA routes and EDCTA will accept transfers from Sac RT routes. Transfer fees apply in both cases. The agreement also includes fare agreements for Los Rios Community College Students with an Access Card or CSUS Students with an ID card (group passes). These students receive a discount on EDCTA Commuter routes and ride free on EDCTA local routes. At the end of each month, EDCTA tallies the number of transfers and group passes accepted from Sac RT and the number of transfers issued by EDCTA for Sac RT. The difference between accepted and issued transfers is payable to the transit agency who issued the greater number of transfers. The amount due is based on the payee’s average annual per passenger fare for the fiscal year minus the amount of revenue collected by EDCTA for issued Sac RT transfers. Employees of both Sac RT and EDCTA are allowed to ride free on the partner transit system with a valid employee badge. As there is an inequality in the number of “free employee trips” provided by each agency, it is likely that a new transfer agreement with Sac RT will be negotiated in 2008 that addresses this situation.
TABLE 8: El Dorado County Transit Authority Fare Structure
General Public Elderly/Disabled Student (K-12) Route One-Way Monthly One-Way Monthly One-Way Monthly
Local Routes Pollock Pines, Placerville Routes $1.10 $33.00 $0.55 $21.00 $1.10 $25.00 Diamond Springs, Cameron Park, and Folsom Lake College Grizzly Flat and South County Routes $2.00 $33.00 $1.00 $21.00 $2.00 $25.00
Dial-A-Ride 1 Zone A-C $3.00 N/A $1.50 N/A $3.00 N/A Zone D-F $5.00 N/A $3.00 N/A $5.00 N/A Zone G-L N/A N/A $5.00 N/A N/A N/A
Commuter Routes Sacramento Commuter Routes $4.00 $144.00 $4.00 $144.00 $4.00 2 $144.00 Combination Pass (RT and EDT) N/A $170.50 N/A $170.50 N/A $170.50 Iron Point Iron Point Connector $2.50 $90.00 $2.50 $90.00 $2.50(3) $90.00 Combination Pass (IPC and RT) N/A $122.50 N/A $122.50 N/A $122.50
SAC-MED Route $5.00 N/A $5.00 N/A $5.00 N/A
Note 1: Additional cost of $0.50 per zone boundary crossed for Elderly/Disabled fares and additional cost of $1.00 per zone boundary crossed for General and Student fares. Note 2: Students with a "Student Access Card" from the Los Rios Community College District or students of CSUS receive a discounted fare of $3.00; all other students are charged the full $4.00 one-way fare. Note 3: FLC and CSUS students with ID receive a discounted fare of $1.50.
Source: El Dorado County Transit Authority.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 45
Table 9 presents a tally of Sac RT fare media issued/accepted by EDCTA for FY 2006/07. As shown, EDCTA drivers issued a total of 1,889 transfers to Sac RT transit services and EDCTA received no transfers from Sac RT riders. A total of 7,879 Student ID’s were accepted on all EDCTA routes. It should be noted that Student ID boardings accounted for 16.72 percent of total boardings on the IPC, 7.75 percent of total boardings on the Diamond Springs/Cameron Park/Folsom Lake College and 6.74 percent of total boardings on the Placerville Express route in FY 2006/07.
EDCTA is also considering entering into a universal fare card program with Sac RT that would involve the purchase smart card readers for some or all of EDCTA vehicles. This program is discussed in greater detail in the Capital Alternatives section.
DISCONTINUED TRANSIT SERVICES
Discontinued EDCTA services consist of the following:
Between July 2004 and July 1, 2006, EDCTA provided service to major employment centers in Rancho Cordova. Commuter Routes 8 and 9 were operated in the morning and afternoon commute period using a 25-passenger bus. Most recently, the routes left at 5:00 AM and 6:35 AM from El Dorado County Fairgrounds Park-and-Ride, arriving at Mayhew Road and Franchise Tax Board Court at 5:57 AM and 7:30 AM. The afternoon routes left Mayhew Road and Franchise Tax Board Court at 3:40 PM and 5:20 PM and arrived at the El Dorado County Fairgrounds at 4:40 PM and 6:35 PM. This service was discontinued due to poor ridership and route performance. Average daily ridership on these routes ranged from two to four passengers per day for each run. In FY 2004/05, the farebox return ratio for the Rancho Cordova Commuter routes was 5.8 percent compared to 66.5 percent on the Sacramento Commuter routes. Productivity (one-way passenger trips per vehicle-hour of service) was 2.8 on the Rancho Cordova routes, whereas the Sacramento Commuter routes produced 16.7 passenger trips per vehicle-hour of service.
The Georgetown Divide Route was a 12-month demonstration project that began February 27, 2001, serving the communities of Georgetown, Greenwood, Cool, Pilot Hill, and Garden Valley. The service initially provided 3 round-trips on Tuesdays and Thursdays but changed to request only service on July 17, 2001 due to low ridership. This service was discontinued February 27, 2002.
The El Dorado Hills Shuttle Bus was implemented as a result of the annual unmet transit needs process during FY 1996/97. This 12-month demonstration project operated during FY 1997/98, serving the El Dorado Hills community. Service was provided Monday through Friday between 5:25 A.M. and 6:20 P.M. Initially 5 loops per day were provided but later reduced to 2 loops per day due to poor ridership. Major stops included El Dorado Hills Business Park, Town Center, Raley’s Center, Oak Ridge High School, The Village, El Dorado Hills Community Service District, Sam’s Town Park-and-Ride, Prospectors Plaza, and El Dorado County Fairgrounds Park-and-Ride. Annual ridership totaled 823, with a 2.3 percent farebox. As the population in El Dorado Hills has increased significantly over the last ten years transit service to the area will be analyzed in the alternatives section.
EXISTING RIDERSHIP AND SERVICE LEVELS
Total annual systemwide ridership for FY 2006/07 on all EDCTA services was 360,569 one-way passenger-trips, an increase of approximately 11.2 percent in comparison to the previous year. In FY 2006/07, the local routes accounted for roughly 38.9 percent of the systemwide ridership and commuter routes accounted for roughly 36.9 percent.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 46 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Lake Folsom South County Park Cameron Local Routes Flat Express Grizzly Springs Diamond Pines Pollock P-Ville Reverse 0007 2 3 4 0 --0 0 0 04 2912 350242 0 133570 248 3003 6496004 6 22941520 0 105 0 08007 140 2 2101171731470 0 02100 248 150 195175348950 0 309 35 0000 337 274203632680 1000 15364960 224229635760 0000 2297 0000 2032611277940 06 124273 0 158 0006 162247237630 0000 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (1) 0 1,889 7,879 Sacto Commuter Iron Point Connector 21 914 55 07 90 0 29 107 0 23 117 0 46 187 2 28 171 1 0 180 4 0 122 0 0 103 0 135 144 1 105 0 33 4 0 0 167 18 86 0 34 0 5 0 44 12 125 0 24 21 3 0 102 39 71 0 24 67 021 0 107 159 0 12 28 0 135 0 0 11 0 282 214 81 74 52 186 0 0 274 178 1,122 0 321 1,054 16 0 1,530 32 1 0 38 2,078 261 729 418 960 72 0 2,097 ST ID EMP TFRS ISSD ST ID EMP TFRS ISSD ST ID EMP TFRS ISSD ST ID ST ID ST ID ST ID ST ID ST ID ST ID ST ID L TABLE 9: Sacramento Regional Transit Fare Media Tally for Fiscal Year 2006 - 2007 Number of Passenger-Trips Key: ST ID = Student s used, EMP RT employee badges TFRS transfers accepted, ISSD issued by EDC TA drivers. Total Transfers Issued: Total Student ID Accepted: Total Transfers Received: Month July-06 August-06 November-06 32 83 0 21 71 0 0 100 September-06October-06 24December-06 104January-07 0February-07 17 15March-07 98April-07 57May-07 0 1 16 0 44 119 0 0 121 June-07 TOTA Note 1: Includes 1 transfer issued for the Rancho Cordova route.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 47
Historical Ridership and Service Levels
Systemwide ridership over FYs 1996/97 through 2006/07, both in total and by major service category, is presented in Table 10. Figure 12 graphically presents 10-year growth in ridership growth in a stacked bar chart format. As presented, total systemwide ridership over this period has increased 35.6 percent, or 3.1 percent annual average growth. The El Dorado Transit target for annual ridership increase is 3.0 percent. Historical change in ridership for each type of service is also illustrated in Figure 13.
Figure 14 presents a pie chart of the proportion of total EDCTA ridership by service category over the most recent year. As shown, the local and commuter ridership levels are relatively equal, and together comprise just over three quarters of total systemwide ridership. The local routes provide the greatest ridership, at 38.9 percent of systemwide ridership, followed by the commuter routes (36.9 percent of systemwide ridership) and the contracted social services (10.7 percent). The DAR service accounts for 9.2 percent of systemwide ridership, Special Event services (Holly Jolly Trolley and Apple Hill Shuttle) account for 3.8 percent and other non-regular, “ancillary” services (rural routes and SAC-MED) only accounted for 0.4 percent of systemwide ridership.
Examination of ridership data by service (Table 10) reveals that the increase in Commuter ridership (53,212 annual one-way passenger-trips) accounts for more than half of the systemwide ridership increase over the ten-year period. Commuter ridership has grown rather steadily since 1996 with exceptions in FY 2003/04 and FY 2006/07. The IPC providing direct service to the Sac RT light rail station in Folsom, began operation in July 2006 and may have reduced ridership on other commuter runs slightly. Although these service changes appear to have had a negative effect on ridership, it typically takes three years for a new service to become established and see full potential ridership. Another factor that may have contributed to a decline in commuter ridership is the addition of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes on US 50, which have eased travel delays for auto drivers and passengers. As stated in Chapter 2, improvement projects to extend the HOV lanes are included in the Sacramento Regional MTP.
Ridership on the DAR service increased significantly (140 percent total growth), or 9.1 percent average annual growth) over the most recent ten years, while ridership growth on the Contracted Social Services has remained relatively flat, as shown in Table 10. The newer SAC-MED service has seen a 160.1 percent increase in ridership from 291 one-way passenger-trips to 757 one-way passenger-trips over the last five years. Ridership on the combined Special Event Services (Holly Jolly Trolley, Apple Hill Shuttle and Main Street Shuttle) has been rather erratic as the Apple Hill Shuttle was not operated in FYs 2002/03, 2003/04 and 2004/05. Even with the addition of the Main Street Shuttle in FY 2006/07 Special Event Services ridership decreased by 27.7 percent over the last ten years. Although it is considered a chartered service and therefore not included in Table 10, it is relevant to note that El Dorado County Fair Shuttle provided 14,417 one-way passenger-trips for the June 2007 Fair.
Table 11 provides ridership data regarding the individual local and rural routes. A review of this data indicates the following:
The Placerville Routes (formerly named Placerville East, Placerville West and Placerville Express) have seen a 42.3 percent increase in ridership over the last ten years or an average annual growth of 3.6 percent. The 29.5 percent jump in ridership from FY 2005/06 to FY 2006/07 can be attributed to the restructuring of the Placerville routes from the Hangtown Shuttle to the East, West and Express routes.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 48 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
% 3.1% 35.6% Change - Total Way Trips 9,463 94,626 265,943255,327 6.3% -4.0% 294,946290,655 -0.2% -1.5% 295,397 15.3% 256,249 0.4% 312,751316,771 5.0% 324,353 1.3% 360,569 2.4% 11.2% 297,840 2.5% nnual One Passenger- A (2) % -3.2% -27.7% Change 765 -32.9% -529 Way Trips 8,9771,140 -27.2% -87.3% 9,319 -9.8% -5,285 Special Event 19,08210,337 -- -45.8% 12,331 32.3% Passenger- Annual One- -- % 27.0% 160.1% Change - Sac - Med 0-- 0-- 0-- 0-- 0-- 0-- 466 117 Way Trips nnual One Passenger- A % 0.0% -0.4% Change Services -17 -173 Way Trips Contracted Social Passenger- Annual One- % 5.2% 66.6% Change - Trips 5,321 53,212 Annual One-Way Passenger % 9.1% 140.0% Change Dial-A-Ride Commuter Routes 1,938 r-Trips 19,384 Annual One-Way Passenge (1) % -7.2% -4.4% 16,930 2.7% 123,808 9.2% 40,160 1.2% 18.5% 16,295 -3.8% 129,294 4.4% 43,650 8.7% 68.5%11.1% 32,302 33,230 18.6% 2.9% 134,367 0.6% 133,081 -1.0% 37,598 38,628 -22.5% 2.7% 677 757 33.0% 11.8% 8,933 580.4% 13,797 54.4% -39.0% 13,117 9.6% 93,381 7.7% 38,631 -0.5% -16.9% 17,616 8.1% 132,504-48.8% 2.5% 45,549 4.4% 291 -27.9% 16,490 25.7% 113,422 21.5% 39,693 2.7% -12.0% 27,227 24.0% 133,529 2.0% 48,510 -3.2% 509 -14.2% 1,313 39.4% -25.0% 21,955 24.6% 130,903 -1.2% 50,118 10.0% 593 103.8% 942 23.1% Change -79 885 723 601 610 638 397 669 743 451 -709 Trips Rural Routes Annual One-Way Passenger- % 2.1% 22.7% Change - Local Routes Trips 2,599 99,553 -4.7% 25,988 Annual 114,345106,040 --100,916 -7.3% -4.8% 1,452 0 -- -- 11,963 -13.6% 13,846 86,715 -- 8.6% 79,869 38,820 12.8% 0.0% 38,801 -- 100,514 1.0% 104,461 -7.4% 112,823 11.8% 105,286109,807 -2.3% 140,333 4.3% 27.8% 107,789 7.2% One-Way Passenger 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 2001-02 2002-03 2000-01 1999-00 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2003-04 Fiscal Year TABLE 10: El Dorado County Transit Authority Historical Ridership Note 1: Rural Routes = Grizzly Flat, El Dorado Hills and South County Note 2: Special Event = Holly Jolly Trolley, Apple Hill Shuttle and Main Street Source: EDCTA Administrative Operations Reports Fiscal Years 1996-97 through 2006-07. Average Annual Growth Total Growth
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 49
Other Special Event Contract Dial-A-Ride Commuter Local Fiscal Year 10-Year Growth = 94,626 Riders, or 35.6 Percent F IGURE 12: El Dorado County Transit Authority Annual Ridership 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 0
50,000
400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 Annual Ridership Annual
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 50 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Special Event Sac-Med Contracted Social Services Commuter Routes Dial-A-Ride Rural Routes Local Routes FIGURE 13: El Dorado County Transit Authority Historical Ridership by Service 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 0
80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000
140,000 120,000 100,000 Annual One-Way Passenger-Trips One-Way Annual
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 51
36.9% Commuter Local 38.9% Ridership by Service 10.7% Contract 3.8% Special Event 9.2% 0.4% Other Dial-A-Ride F IGURE 14: Proportion of Annual El Dorado County Transit Authority
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 52 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
-- 2.1% 23.4% Total 2,673 26,731 114,345 107,492101,801 -6.0% 113,461 -5.3% 105,071 11.5% 100,276 -7.4% 101,115 -4.6% 108,240105,683 0.8% 110,476 7.0% -2.4% 141,076 4.5% 27.7% (2) ------Discontinued Routes % -30.0% -30.0% Change # % Change # % Change -63 -63 ------% -5.2% -0.6% Change # Grizzly Flat South County -4 -33 2.8% 31.6% Cameron Park 897 Diamond Springs/ 8,971 -3.0% -26.3% Pollock Pines -741 -7,406 (1) 3.6% 42.3% # % Change # % Change # % Change # 2,442 Placerville Routes 57,79853,98953,652 --56,534 -6.6%54,401 -0.6%53,519 5.4% 24,715 28,11754,414 -3.8% 26,44459,315 -1.6% -12.1% 27,98457,097 1.7% 25,621 -- 7.0%63,506 9.0% 21,426 27,336 5.8%82,221 -3.7% -8.4% 21,345 11.2% 20,820 -16.4% 28,430 21,749 -3.8% 29.5% 19,296 28,305 -0.4% 24,439 -23.8% 18,549 24,608 1.9% 20,711 -11.3% 629 -- 36.0% -13.7% 24,755 -3.9% 885 0.7% 11.7% 26,725 28,893 -- 638 40.7% 553 0.6% 27,752 647 8.0% -27.9% 37,401 8.1% -13.3% -- -3.9% -- 601 17.0% 34.8% -- 451 -- 397 -7.1% 459 ------25.0% -12.0% 596 -- -- 15.6% -- 29.8% ------823 -- 210 -- 57 147 ------76 -30.0% ------24,423 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Fiscal Year TABLE 11: El Dorado County Transit Authority - Local and Rural Routes Historical Ridership Annual One-way Passenger Trips Total Growth Average Annual Growth Note 1: Placerville Routes = Hangtown Shuttle, East, West and Express Note 2: Discontinued Routes = El Dorado Hills and Georgetown. Source: EDCTA Administrative Operations Reports Fiscal Years 1996-97 through 2006-07.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 53
Over the ten-year period, the Pollock Pines route has seen a 26.3 percent decrease in ridership or an average annual decrease of 3.0 percent. However, service frequency improvements made during FY 2006/07 resulted in an 11.7 percent growth in ridership from FY 2005/06 levels.
Ridership on the Diamond Springs and Cameron Park routes has increased by 31.6 percent over the ten-year period. Up until FY 2006/07 these routes were operated with one bus which resulted long wait times for connecting or return trips. After the restructuring of these routes, combined ridership on both routes increased by 34.8 percent in FY 2006/07 from the previous year.
The rural Grizzly Flat and South County routes have less than 1,000 annual one-way passenger-trips each. The South County route ridership declined between the first and second years of service. The Grizzly Flat route dropped from a high of 885 trips in FY 1998/99 to a low of 397 trips in 2004/05, but has subsequently increased to a 2006/07 figure of 596. Table 11 also presents data for two local routes (El Dorado Hills and Georgetown) that were discontinued due to low ridership.
Table 12 presents a review of trends in vehicle service hours, which increased by 59.7 percent over the data period. Figure 15 graphically displays the 10-year growth in vehicle service hours. As shown, changes in vehicle-hours of service parallels ridership trends, except for Contracted Social Services where vehicle service hours decreased by 40.2 percent over the ten-year period and ridership only decreased by 0.4 percent. The largest increase in vehicle service hours over the ten-year period (687.1 percent or 22.9 percent average annual growth) occurred on the DAR system. The largest proportional decease in vehicle service hours occurred on the rural routes (41.5 percent or 5.8 percent annually).
Vehicle service mile data, as shown in Table 13, indicates that mileage has increased by 70 percent over the most recent ten-year period. Mileage associated with the DAR system has increased ten-fold over the period under review. The SAC-MED route has also increased vehicle service miles significantly over the lifetime of the program (75.0 percent). Vehicle service miles have decreased by 80.4 percent on the rural routes. It should be noted that vehicle service miles incorrectly included deadhead miles for years 1997/2003. Therefore, in FY 2003/04, there appears to be a large decrease in vehicle service miles.
A comparison of one-way passenger-trips per vehicle service hour (“productivity”) for the same time period is presented in Table 14. In FY 2006/07, EDCTA carried roughly 7.0 one-way passenger-trips per vehicle service hour over all services. Systemwide, productivity has decreased by 1.2 one-way passenger- trips per vehicle service hour since FY 1996/97. When individual services are examined, only the Contracted Social Services and SAC-MED routes had increases in productivity (2.5 and 0.2 passengers per vehicle service hour, respectively). It should be noted that productivity of transit services typically declines as services expand, reflecting that expansions of service are typically into geographic areas or times of day with relatively low ridership potential. The DAR route had the largest decrease in productivity, (5.2 passengers per vehicle service hour) or an average annual decrease of 11.2 percent over the ten-year period, followed by the rural and local routes with an average annual decrease in productivity of 1.5 percent and 1.3 percent, respectively). This decline in DAR productivity, however, may be a result in changes in ridership categories; since 2000/01, productivity on DAR has been relatively constant.
Ridership by Day of Week
Ridership by day of week is presented in Table 15. This data was derived using daily service reports for October 21-27, 2006 and March 10-16, 2007. Systemwide, ridership was greatest on Monday; however, ridership by day of the week varies between each type of service. Local route ridership is highest on Tuesdays, commuter ridership peaks on Wednesdays, while DAR ridership peaks on Thursday. Overall, Fridays represent the weekday with the lowest ridership.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 54 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Total 32,261 29,791 29,856 30,591 33,398 34,608 34,997 36,358 38,054 40,649 51,531 (2) 91 730 399 505 581 547 153 101 161 587 547 Special Event ------219 350 348 417 482 Social Services Sac-Med Contracted Routes Commuter 1,267 6,709 9,301 1,649 6,928 8,191 2,255 8,151 7,799 6,621 8,697 5,559 6,561 10,188 5,461 7,071 10,095 5,597 7,908 9,818 6,046 10,595 9,381 6,088 13,093 9,076 5,828 14,042 12,169 6,246 Dial-A-Ride (1) 568 199 216 444 254 185 196 189 325 332 Rural Routes 5,023 -236 12,258 5,563 -4,205 263 -183 19,270 39.6% -41.5% 687.1% 84.2% -40.2% 120.1% -25.1% 59.7% 12,690 -- 1,784 6,606 10,451 11,547 12,384 11,589 11,530 11,991 11,739 11,939 11,292 11,323 17,713 Local Routes 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Fiscal Year TABLE 12: El Dorado County Transit Authority Historical Annual Vehicle Hours of Service Total Change % Change Average Annual Change% Average Annual Change 502 3.4%Note 1: Rural Routes = Grizzly Flat, El Dorado Hills and South County Note 2: Special Event = Holly Jolly Trolley, Apple Hill Shuttle and Main Street Source: EDCTA Administrative Operations Reports Fiscal Years 1996-97 through 2006-07. -5.8% -26 22.9% 1,226 6.3% 556 -5.0% -421 21.8% -2.8% 66 4.8% -18 1,927
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 55
Other Special Event Contract Dial-A-Ride Commuter Local Fiscal Year 10-Year Growth = 19,270 Vehicle-Hours, or 59.7 Percent : El Dorado County Transit Authority Annual Vehicle-Hours of Service F IGURE 15 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 0
60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 Annual Vehicle-Hours of Service of Vehicle-Hours Annual
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 56 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Total 666,919 699,027 678,794 744,971 921,456 891,239 855,885 910,494 1,133,851 1,001,528 1,164,909 (2) 831 9,815 5,773 6,497 7,325 7,290 1,309 7,053 7,083 2,496 1,252 Special Event ------8,430 11,825 11,032 12,780 14,749 Sac-Med Contracted Social Services Routes Commuter 25,022 233,952 179,253 45,915 298,784 168,360 147,596 355,158 185,341 181,339 351,741 131,337 142,861 452,302 180,811 220,171 297,758 128,016 281,294 285,578 121,033 319,318 364,722 131,709 286,912 463,369 180,820 Dial-A-Ride (1) Rural 4,502 6,423 8,802 4,795 7,503 8,398 6,239 42,872 11,121 Routes Local 6,856 -3,830 29,071 3,945 4,779 1,580 -273 46,693 31.3% -80.4% 1016.3% 12.1% 56.9% 75.0% -27.8% 70.0% 68,562 -34,474 290,712 39,453 47,790 6,319 -2,732 466,932 Routes 209,664 219,310 -- 28,606 325,269 83,919 212,155 218,164 214,950 214,256 192,804 195,253 287,872 211,425 8,530 37,519 240,553 174,270 217,887 (3) 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2002-03 2003-04 Fiscal Year TABLE 13: El Dorado Transit Historical Annual Vehicle Miles of Service Total Change % Change Average Annual Change % Average Annual ChangeNote 1: Rural Routes = Grizzly Flat, El Dorado Hills and South County 2.8%Note 2: Special Event = Holly Jolly Trolley, Apple Hill Shuttle and Main Street Note 3: Prior to Fiscal Year 2003-2004 deadhead miles were incorrectly included in vehicle service miles. -16.6%Source: EDCTA Administrative Operations Reports Fiscal Years 1996-97 through 2006-07. 27.3% 1.2% 4.6% 15.0% -3.2% 5.5%
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 57
8.2 8.6 8.6 9.7 8.8 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.3 8.0 7.0 Total (2) 7.5 Special Event -- 26.1 -- 25.9 -- 18.5 -- 21.2 -- 16.4 -- 3.7 4.2 4.7 5.1 7.2 8.0 8.1 1.3 8.4 8.3 1.7 9.3 8.0 1.5 8.2 6.5 1.6 15.2 6.2 1.6 25.2 2.5 0.2 -0.9 -1.2 Social Services Sac-Med Contracted -1.2 12.1 12.9 13.5 13.9 14.2 12.7 13.1 13.3 14.2 14.8 10.9 Routes Commuter 7.8 9.4 8.0 7.3 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.4 Dial-A-Ride (1) -- 2.6 4.4 3.0 1.4 2.9 3.2 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.2 Rural Routes 9.2 9.0 8.1 9.7 9.1 8.3 8.6 9.0 9.3 9.7 7.9 -1.3% -1.5% -11.2% -1.0% 5.2% 4.3% -0.4% -1.6% e 10-Year Change -1.1 -0.3 -5.4 1997-98 1996-97 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Fiscal Year Local Routes Average Annual Chang TABLE 14: El Dorado County Transit Authority Historical Productivity Passenger Trips per Vehicle Service Hour Note 1: Rural Routes = Grizzly Flat, El Dorado Hills and South County Note 2: Special Event = Holly Jolly Trolley, Apple Hill Shuttle and Main Street Source: EDCTA Administrative Operations Reports Fiscal Years 1996-97 through 2006-07.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 58 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
5 – – – – 23 74 85 34 514 252 183 119 153 541 118 593 Weekday Average Per ------Saturday Sunday p 2 6 -- -- verage Daily Ridershi 5 A 21.1% 22.2% 20.6% 15.9% 4 6 24 27 16 28 19 5 -- 74 67 78 68 82 -- -- 87 96 89 81 75 10 -- 28 39 33 39 32 -- -- 255 265 242 261 236 118 -- 186 206 189 196 136 17 -- 100 113118 118 122 129 129 128 125 43 103 23 -- -- 146 160 162 164 135 601 633 598 605 529 144 0 1,393 1,317 1,315 1,292 1,087 187 23 1,281 20.2% 21.1% 19.9% 19.9% 19.5% 16.4% 2.8% 0.3% 15.3% 17.2% 18.1% 19.8% 19.6% 6.5% 3.4% 19.0% 20.9% 21.1% 21.3% 17.6% -- -- Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday (1) AM PM Commuter RoutesReverse Commuter Route 519 540 579 529 405 -- -- Placerville East/West Subtotal Commuter RoutesProportion of Weekly Total 546 572 600 558 430 Placerville Express Diamond Springs/Cameron Park Proportion of Weekly Total MORE Total Daily Ridership Proportion of Weekly Total Proportion of Weekly Total 19.3%Iron Point Connector 20.3% 19.2% 19.5% 17.0% 4.6% 0.0% – Pollock Pines Subtotal Local Routes Senior Day Care Subtotal Social Services Proportion of Weekly Total Local Routes General Services Contracted Social Services Commuter Routes Dial-A-Ride Note: Data from March 10 - 16, 2007 and October 21 27, 2006 were used as a sample to represent ridership on typical weekday. Note 1: The Iron Point Connector operated on Saturdays during the time period reviewed. Saturday service has since been discontinued due to low ridership. Source: El Dorado County Transit Authority. TABLE 15: El Dorado County Transit Authority Ridership by Day of Week
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 59
Ridership by Month
Monthly ridership data by route/service for the most recent FY is presented in Table 16. As shown, total systemwide ridership is highest in the month of October, due in part to the seasonal Apple Hill Shuttle. March and May also represent high transit activity months. Ridership is the lowest in the months of July, December, and February.
Reviewing Ridership-by-month provides an opportunity to evaluate the improvement over time of new services, such as the Placerville Express and the IPC. As shown in Table 16, ridership on the Placerville Express has decreased over the fiscal year, but the IPC has shown some improvement. It should be noted that dips in ridership during the summer months on the IPC reflect at least in part the relatively high proportion of student passengers on this route.
Detailed Passenger Activity – Local and Rural Routes
Boardings and Alightings by Stop
EDCTA drivers do not record passenger activity by stop for the local and rural routes as part of their daily routine, though a total summary of boardings for each run of the route is recorded. To provide information on passenger activity at stop, EDCTA drivers were provided a survey form to record boardings and alightings at each stop along their routes for the weekdays between November 8 and 15, 2007. While some boardings and alightings may have been omitted from the survey form, the results reveal general trends in passenger activity by stop for the local and rural routes. Tables 17 through 23 present the average of the total passenger boardings and passenger alightings at each stop for the week of November 8–15, 2007 for each of the individual routes:
Placerville Routes – Boardings and alightings on the Placerville routes are presented in Table 17. Overall, the greatest number of boardings and alightings was recorded at the Missouri Flat Transfer Center (81 boardings, 64 alightings) and Placerville Station (37 boardings, 27 alightings). Average weekday boardings and alightings recorded at the following stops were less than one: 3177 Turner St., Ridgecrest, Snowline Hospice and Woodridge. As an “express” route through Placerville, the Placerville Express route has seven stops. Significantly more boardings and alightings were recorded at the Missouri Flat Transfer Center, Old City Hall and Placerville Station than Big 5, Home Depot, Library, and Regal Theaters.
Cameron Park – As shown in Table 18, the Missouri Flat Transfer Station had the greatest number of boardings and alightings during the review period (19 boardings, 26 alightings), followed by Safeway (12 boardings, 8 alightings) and Cameron Park Drive/Green Valley Road (11 boardings, 9 alightings). Less than one average weekday boarding or alighting was recorded at 13 of the 23 stops. Three or fewer boardings and alightings were recorded at various flag stops. Verada Drive was the flag stop with the most passenger activity.
Diamond Springs – As shown in Table 19, bus stops with the greatest number of boardings and alightings on the Diamond Springs route were the Missouri Flat Transfer Station (29 boardings, 39 alightings), Pleasant Valley/Church Street (11 boardings, 4 alightings) and Union Mine High School (10 boardings, 5 alightings). On average there was less than 1 boarding or alighting at Panther Lane during this week in November. Popular flag stops along this route include Panorama Mobile Home Park and Vision Center.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 60 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
– – Total % Avg. 23,46930,504 78.1% 29,678 101.5% 39,752 98.7% 27,122 132.3% 26,269 90.2% 30,664 87.4% 27,047 102.0% 34,078 90.0% 31,294 113.4% 32,561 104.1% 28,221 108.3% 93.9% (1) Special Event 2,9493,5163,217 713,348 1203,034 562,946 95 0 3,322 0 613,001 407 57 9,628 3,438 513,177 47 0 1,578 3,431 423,249 445 54 378 60 415 433,219 412 331 203 63 1,150 30,055 – Social 10.7% 0.2% 3.8% 100.0% 38,628 757 13,797 360,659 Services Sac - Med Contracted 9,999 8,967 9,910 36.9% 10,300 12,493 10,712 11,250 11,535 12,194 11,440 12,694 11,587 11,090 133,081 Subtotal r Routes Commute Rancho Cordova Commuter Routes Reverse Commuter Iron Point Sacto Commuter Ride 9.2% 34.9% 0.2% 1.7% 0.01% 2,8433,1492,878 9,952 12,0992,771 10,2092,504 70 10,668 582,459 602,704 9,536 241 782,429 8,476 336 11,0123,051 53 4432,827 9,390 54 37 504 11,483 802,917 -- 410 10,5952,788 -- 40 437 11,755 75 -- 443 10,797 36 -- 480 682,777 636 -- 95 -- 809 10,498 871 -- -- 695 64 ------525 3 33,320 125,972 767 6,305 37 Dial- A- 57 88 56 61 59 44 67 49 64 63 66 69 62 743 0.2% Rural Routes Subtotal South County Rural Routes 46 11 704649 18 45 10 37 12 57 14 4553 7 10 4854 4 11 46 15 12 23 50 12 596 147 Flat 0.2% 0.0% Grizzly Local 7,249 38.9% 11,138 12,352 12,599 11,465 10,218 12,540 11,233 14,874 13,321 13,062 10,282 11,694 Routes 140,333 Subtotal Park Springs/ Diamond Cameron Pines Pollock Local Routes Express Placerville 4,593 -- 1,106 1,550 5,6985,807 1,1295,825 1,3095,395 1,683 1,4775,041 1,697 1,3925,893 2,628 1,598 1,3185,164 3,539 1,469 1,4356,703 3,699 1,427 1,2446,395 3,209 1,869 1,6295,879 2,432 1,752 1,3515,577 3,343 2,186 1,185 3,073 2,050 782 4,356 2,2155,664 3,525 1,659 3,783 1,188 2,264 1,726 3,117 67,970 14,251 20,711 37,401 Placerville East/ West TABLE 16: Total El Dorado County Transit Authority Ridership by Month, Fiscal Year 2006-07 July 2006 August September October November December January 2007 February March April May June Subtotal Monthly Average % of Systemwide Total 18.8% 4.0% 5.7% 10.4% Month Note 1: Special Event = Holly Jolly Trolley, Apple Hill Shuttle and Main Street Source: EDCTA Administrative Operations Reports, July 2006 through June 2007.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 61
TABLE 17: El Dorado County Transit Authority Placerville Routes Average Weekday Passenger Activity by Stop Week of November 8 - 15, 2007
Placerville East Placerville West Placerville Express Total Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings 3177 Turner St. 0 1 ------01 Bdwy / Carson -- -- 4 0 -- -- 40 Bdwy/Schnll Sch. -- -- 6 0 -- -- 60 Bee / Coloma 1 3 2 0 -- -- 33 Big 5 4 2 -- -- 2 3 65 Big Lots 6 1 1 5 -- -- 76 Broadway / Point View 2 9 ------29 Clay / New Jersey 13 10 ---- 23 Cold Springs Dental 6 2 ------62 Coloma Ct 38 94 ---- 12 12 Cottonwood 1 8 4 2 -- -- 510 DMV -- -- 3 4 -- -- 34 El Dorado HS 0 5 2 1 -- -- 26 Fairgrounds 1 1 0 2 -- -- 13 Forni / Lo-Hi 3 1 1 4 -- -- 45 Fowler Way 0 1 1 1 -- -- 12 Gold Country 0 5 ------05 Hidden Spr MHP 1 1 1 1 -- -- 22 Home Depot 12 00 12 24 Human Services 2 3 1 3 -- -- 36 Library 32 14 36 712 Marshall Hospital 0 4 3 2 -- -- 36 Midtown Mall -- -- 3 6 -- -- 36 Missouri Flat Transfer Ctr. 49 3 1 26 31 35 81 64 MORE 6 2 0 6 -- -- 68 Old City Hall 6 10 7 3 15 13 28 26 Pacific / Clark 1 3 ------13 Phoenix Ctr 2 1 ------21 Placerville PO 2 5 5 3 -- -- 78 Placerville Station 3 10 14 1 20 16 37 27 Raley's 13 6 5 11 -- -- 18 17 Regal Theaters -- -- 3 2 3 2 64 Ridgecrest 0 1 0 0 -- -- 01 Rite-Aid 0 5 ------05 Senior Center 63 54 ---- 11 7 Snowline Hosp. -- -- 0 1 -- -- 01 Tunnel St Apts 2 4 4 2 -- -- 66 Turner Ct. 0 1 ------01 Upper Room 4 6 ------46 Woodmans -- -- 6 3 -- -- 63 Woodridge 0 1 1 0 -- -- 11
Total 129 123 94 101 75 77 298 301
Source: EDCTA, 2007
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 62 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
lightings A 52 21 12 100 0 1 4 5 2 3 2 4 2 72 66 11 4 29 39 10 5 Boardings 7 s r e r TABLE 19: El Dorado County Transit Authority Diamond Springs Routes Average Weekday Passenger Activity by Stop Independence High School Pearl Place / Courtside Plsnt. Vlly / Oro Lan Plsnt. Vlly / Diamond Meadow Golden Center Ct. Diamond Springs Mobile Home ParkPanthe EDCTA Offices 1Total 2 Week of November 8 - 15, 200 Lake Oaks / Patterson Missouri Flat Transfer Station Plsnt. Vlly / Church St. Union Mine High School Eskaton Lincoln Mano Source: EDCTA, 2007 lightings A 23 22 11 04 00 0 0 0 000 0 0 1 2 0000 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 54 58 12 8 21 24 Boardings 7 y e e r y r TABLE 18: El Dorado Transit Authority Cameron Park Routes Average Weekday Passenger Activity by Stop Bel Ai La Crescenta / Green Valley Rd Country Club / Garden Circl Marshall Medical, Cameron ParkEskaton Lincoln Mano Mother Lode / Blanchard Mother Lode / Davidson 1Mother Lode / Production Ponderosa High School Durock Center Market Court 0 Cambridge / Sandhurst Cameron Park Library Cambridge Rd P & R Country Club / Cambridge Mother Lode / Summit View Mother Lode / Pleasant Valle Mother Lode / Blanchard Total Cameron Park Dr / Green Valley RdCimmeron / La Canada 11 9 Mother Lode / So. Shingl Route Stops Week of November 8 - 15, 200 Missouri Flat Transfer Station Safewa
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 63
Folsom Lake College – As shown in Table 20, high activity stops on this route are the Missouri Flat Transfer Center (48 boardings, 41 alightings) and the Child Development Center at the College (24 boardings, 21 alightings).
Pollock Pines – The Pollock Pines route (Table 21) has 10 regularly scheduled stops with one stop at the Missouri Flat Transfer Center at 7:40 AM. During the week under review, passenger activity was recorded at 56 flag stops. Stops with the greatest passenger activity were: Placerville Station (37 boardings, 27 alightings) and Safeway Plaza at Pony Express Trail (16 boardings, 11 alightings). The Alder Road/Pony Express stop was the most common flag stop.
Rural Routes – Only 15 average weekday boardings and alightings were recorded on both the Grizzly Flat and South County routes (Table 22). Most passenger activity was recorded on the northwestern portion of these runs between the Missouri Flat Transfer Center and Pleasant Valley Square.
Total combined average weekday boardings and alightings by stop for all rural and local routes is shown in Table 23. Over the review period, the Missouri Flat Transfer Station served an average weekday passenger activity of 180 boardings and 183 alightings. Other well-used bus stops include Placerville Station, Old City Hall, Child Development at Folsom Lake College, Safeway on Pony Express Trail, and Raley’s on Placerville Drive. Less than 1 average weekday boarding was recorded at a total of 23 EDCTA local and rural route bus stops. Most of these stops with low activity are located on the Grizzly Flat, South County and Cameron Park routes.
Boardings and Alightings By-Hour of Day
The same driver survey data for the week of November 8th to 15th, 2007 used to evaluate activity by stop was also evaluated with regards to ridership activity by-hour of the day:
Figure 16 displays average weekday boardings for the Placerville routes. The greatest number of boardings occurred in the afternoon around 2:00 PM and 3:00 PM.
As shown in Figure 17, boardings on the Folsom Lake College route peak in the morning at 7:00 AM with another spike in ridership at 1:00 PM.
The Cameron Park route also has the greatest number of boardings in the morning at 6:00 AM. The Diamond Springs route has more consistent ridership throughout the day with a peak in average weekday boardings at 10:00 AM.
Ridership-by-hour for the Pollock Pines route is displayed in Figure 18. As this route generally serves residents in the more rural areas of the County who require travel to Placerville for shopping and appointments, the largest concentration of boardings occurs during the 7:00 AM hour with a more continuous level of boardings in the afternoon hours.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 64 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
TABLE 20: El Dorado County Transit Authority Folsom Lake College Routes Average Weekday Passenger Activity by Stop Week of November 8 - 15, 2007
Boardings Alightings
Missouri Flat Transfer Center 48 41 Child Development 24 21 Prospector Plaza 7 9 Safeway 51 Folsom Lake College 4 11 Green Valley Church 0 0
Total 88 83
Source: EDCTA, 2007
TABLE 21: El Dorado County Transit Authority Pollock Pines Routes Average Weekday Passenger Activity by Stop Week of November 8 - 15, 2007 Boardings Alightings
Placerville Station 37 27 Safeway Plaza (Pony Express Trail) 16 11 Carson / Larsen 5 2 Gold Country Inn 0 0 Pony Exp. / Sanders 42 Pollock Pines P.O. 3 5 Broadway / Carson 2 8 Broadway / Schnell Sch. 2 5 Camino P.O. 2 3 Missouri Flat Transfer Ctr 0 10 Camino Heights Dr. and US 50 0 0
Total 71 73
Source: EDCTA, 2007
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 65
TABLE 22: El Dorado County Transit Authority Rural Routes Average Weekday Passenger Activity by Stop Week of November 8 - 15, 2007
Boardings Alightings Grizzly Flat Prospector Plaza 3 1 Missouri Flat Transfer Center 2 3 Pleasant Valley Square 21 Mt. Aukum / Grizzly Flat 12 Oak Hill Center 1 1 Sciaroni / Capps Crossing 1 0 Evergreen / String Canyon 1 0 Golden Center 00 Pleasant Valley / Diamond Meadows 00 Pleasant Valley / Bucks Bar 00 Pearts Little Place 0 0 Winding Way 0 0 Grizzly Flat / Pine Ridge 00 Pearts Little Place 0 0
South County 1 Prospector Plaza 1 1 Missouri Flat Transfer Center 1 0 Pleasant Valley Square 00 Three Forks Grange 0 0 Bistro / Fairplay 00 Pioneer Park Community Center 0 0 Outingdale Road 0 0 Mt. Aukum / Grizzly Flat 0 0
Total 13 9
Note 1: Data for South County route represents one day only (November 13, 2007). Source: EDCTA, 2007
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 66 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
TABLE 23: El Dorado County Transit Authority Total Average Weekday Passenger Activity for Local and Rural Routes Week of November 8 - 15, 2007
EDCTA Bus Stops Boardings Alightings EDCTA Bus Stops Boardings Alightings Missouri Flat Transfer Station 180 183 Bel Air (Goldorado Center) 2 2 Placerville Station 74 54 Hidden Spr MHP 2 2 Old City Hall 28 26 Phoenix Ctr 21 Child Development (FLC) 24 21 Pleasant Valley Square 21 Safeway (Pony Express Trail) 21 12 Plsnt. Vlly / Oro Lane 21 Raley's (Placerville Dr.) 18 17 Fairgrounds 1 3 Coloma Ct 12 12 Pacific / Clark 1 3 Safeway (Cameron Park Place) 12 8 Diamond Springs MHP 12 Prospector Plaza 11 11 Fowler Way 12 Cameron Park Dr / Green Valley Rd 11 9 La Crescenta / Green Valley Rd 12 Placerville Senior Center 11 7 Mt. Aukum / Grizzly Flat 12 Plsnt. Vlly / Church St. 11 4 Plsnt. Vlly / Diam.Mead. 12 Union Mine HS 10 5 Country Club / Garden Cir 11 Placerville Library 7 12 Golden Center Court (Placerville) 11 Placerville PO 7 8 Oak Hill Ctr 11 Big Lots (Fair Lane) 7 6 Woodridge 1 1 MORE 6 8 Evergreen / String Canyon 10 Tunnel St Apts 6 6 Marshall Medical (Cameron Park) 10 Big 5 (Placerville Dr.) 6 5 Sciaroni / Capps Crossing 1 0 Regal Theaters 6 4 Rite-Aid (Placerville) 05 Woodmans 6 3 EDCTA Offices 0 4 Cold Springs Dental 6 2 Camino Heights 02 Bdwy/Schnll Sch. 6 0 3177 Turner St. 0 1 Cottonwood 5 10 Ridgecrest 01 Eskaton Lincoln Manor 5 6 Snowline Hosp. 0 1 Gold Country Inn 5 6 Turner Ct. 0 1 Carson / Larsen 5 2 Bistro / Fairplay 00 Lakes Oaks / Patterson 5 2 Cambridge / Sandhurst 00 Folsom Lake College 4 11 Cambridge Rd P & R 00 Upper Room 4 6 Cameron Park Library 00 Forni / Lo-Hi 4 5 Country Club / Cambridge 00 Independence HS 4 2 Durock Center 00 Pony Exp. / Sanders 4 2 Green Vlly Church 0 0 Bdwy / Carson 4 0 Grizzly Flat / Pine Ridge 00 Human Services 3 6 Market Court 00 Marshall Hospital 3 6 Mother Lode / Blanchard 00 Midtown Mall 3 6 Mother Lode / Davidson 0 0 Cimmeron / La Canada 3 5 Mother Lode / Pleasant Vlly 00 Pollock Pines P.O. 3 5 Mother Lode / Production 00 DMV 3 4 Mother Lode / Summit View 00 Bee / Coloma 3 3 Outingdale Road 0 0 Pearl Place / Courtside 3 2 Panther 00 Broadway / Point View 2 9 Pearts Little Place 00 Broadway / Carson 2 8 Pioneer Park Comm. Ctr 00 El Dorado HS 2 6 Ponderosa HS 0 0 Broadway / Schnell Sch. 2 5 PV / Bucks Bar 0 0 Home Depot (Placerville Dr.) 2 4 PV / Diamond Meadows 00 Camino P.O. 2 3 Three Forks Grange 0 0 Clay / New Jersey 2 3 Winding Way 0 0 Mother Lode / So. Shingle 23
Note: Bus stops showing 0 passenger activity represents less than one average weekday boarding or alighting recorded. Source: EDCTA, 2007
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 67
Placerville West Hour Beginning Placerville East Placerville Express F IGURE 16: El Dorado County Transit Authority Average Weekday Boardings by Hour - Placerville Routes 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM
5 0
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 Average Weekday Boardings Weekday Average
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 68 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Folsom Lake College Hour Beginning Diamond Springs Cameron Park Cameron Park/Diamond Springs/Folsom Lake College Routes F IGURE 17: El Dorado County Transit Authority Average Weekday Boardings by Hour - 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM
5 0
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 Average Weekday Boardings Weekday Average
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 69
Hour Beginning F IGURE 18: El Dorado County Transit Authority Average Weekday Boardings by Hour - Pollock Pines Route 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM
5 0
25 20 15 10 Average Weekday Boardings Weekday Average
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 70 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Detailed Passenger Activity – DAR
Origin/Destination Trip Patterns
Table 24 presents the distribution of origin/destination trip patterns for one day in October on the DAR system. This data does not include trips provided for contracted social service clients or SAC-MED trips. As shown, nearly half of non-social service DAR trips on October 24, 2006, began and ended in Placerville. Trips between Cameron Park and Placerville and Diamond Springs and Placerville represent the next most frequent trip pattern.
Boardings By-Hour of Day
Figure 19 presents average weekday DAR pickups for non-social service passengers by-hour of day. The greatest number of boardings occurred during the 10:00 AM hour (12 pickups) followed by the noon hour (10 pickups). The fewest average weekday boardings occurred during the 5:00 PM hour, although this could be due to the fact that no return trip is available.
Detailed Passenger Activity – Sacramento Commuter Routes
Driver trip sheets for the week of March 12–16, 2007 were reviewed to determine average weekday boardings for each commuter route. Similar to the passenger activity tables for the fixed-routes, complete boarding activity was not available for one day during the week reviewed. Nevertheless, the data in the following tables is still useful to analyze general ridership trends. As presented in Table 25, Commuter Route 5 has the greatest total average weekday boardings (61 boardings). This is mainly due to high
TABLE 24: Dial-A-Ride Origin / Destination Trip Patterns - October 24, 2006
To: Pollock Diamond El Shingle Cameron El Dorado Pines Camino Placerville Springs Dorado Springs Park Hills Rescue
Pollock Pines 0.0% 0.0% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Camino 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Placerville 2.2% 0.0% 48.4% 6.5% 2.2% 0.0% 6.5% 1.1% 1.1%
Diamond Springs 0.0% 0.0% 4.3% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
El Dorado 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% From: Shingle Springs 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Cameron Park 0.0% 0.0% 6.5% 1.1% 0.0% 1.1% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0%
El Dorado Hills 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0%
Rescue 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Note: Does not include trips made for contracted social services. Source: EDCTA
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 71
Hour Beginning by Hour of Day F IGURE 19: Average Weekday Dial-A-Ride Pickups 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 14.0 12.0 10.0
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 72 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
1 ------Reverse Commuter Routes 0274 - 6 - 7 - 1 - 2 - 2 1 - 8 - 7 25 20 PM Routes 625 2 9 2 5 1 9 2 9 3 3 1 2 2 - 2 26 25 35 M Routes A 642 2 3 2 1 2 8 1 1 2 4 1 8 1 2 - 52 45 41 14 24 34 44 56 63 74 84 92 11 12 10 Routes Total Average Boardings El Dorado County Stops Sacramento Downtown Stops TABLE 25: El Dorado County Transit Authority Average Weekday Commuter Route Boarding Summary March 12 - 16, 2007 Note 1: Reverse routes for AM and PM are combined Source: EDCTA, 2007
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 73
TABLE 26: El Dorado County Transit Authority Commuter Route Average Weekday Boardings by Stop
Stop Boardings % of Total Rodeo Road Park & Ride 18 6.8% Cambridge Park & Ride 37 14.0% El Dorado Hills Park & Ride 118 44.7% El Dorado County Fairgrounds Park & Ride 36 13.5% Ponderosa Park & Ride 43 16.3% Placerville Station 12 4.6% Total 263 100.0%
Source: EDCTA driver trip sheets March 12 -16, 2007
ridership on the PM portion of Commuter Route 5 (36 boardings in Sacramento). A relatively high number of boardings occurred on the Commuter Route 10 AM route (35 El Dorado County boardings). Only 7 average weekday boardings were recorded at Sacramento Downtown stops on the Commuter Route 10 PM route. This is the last PM route of the day and leaves Sacramento at 6:30 PM.
Public comment has indicated that some of the Park-and-Ride lots in El Dorado County have reached capacity. Therefore boarding data at the various El Dorado County stops along the Commuter routes was reviewed and presented in Table 26. Approximately 44.5 percent of average weekday Commuter route boardings in El Dorado County occur at the El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride or a total of 118 boardings. Only 18 boardings or 6.8 percent were recorded at the Rodeo Road Park-and-Ride in Cameron Park and 12 boardings or 4.6 percent were recorded at Placerville Station.
Detailed Passenger Activity – Iron Point Commuter Routes
Table 27 presents average weekday boardings by-stop and by-run for the IPC during the week of March 12–16, 2007. The highest average weekday boardings were recorded on the 7:40 AM run (6.2 boardings or 23.1 percent of total), followed closely by the 3:40 PM run (5.6 boardings or 20.9 percent of total). Only 1.2 average weekday boardings were recorded on the 5:40 AM run. Approximately, 29.9 percent of total boardings (8.0 boardings) occurred at the El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride. Other popular stops were the Iron Point Light Rail Station (6.2 boardings) and the Missouri Flat Transfer Center (5.8 boardings). As there is only 1 scheduled stop at the El Dorado County Fairgrounds Park-and-Ride, less than 1 average weekday boarding was recorded there.
FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Cost Allocation Model
Existing EDCTA operating costs were analyzed to assess those factors that impact cost levels. Each cost item is allocated to that quantity – vehicle service hour, vehicle service mile, vehicle or fixed costs – upon which it is most dependent. Fuel costs, for example, are allocated to vehicle service miles. When divided by the total quantity of service budgeted in FY 2006/07, a “cost equation” can be developed, as presented in Table 28 below. This equation is:
Operating Cost = $0.89 x annual vehicle service miles + $61.90 x annual vehicle service hours + $792,713 in annual fixed costs.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 74 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 2.4 1.0 6.2 5.6 0.8 0.0 1.6 5.8 verage Passengers A -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.4 0.0 1.2 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.8 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.4 1.8 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.4 -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.8 -- -- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.2 0.8 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 5:40 AM 7:40 AM 9:40 AM 11:40 AM 1:40 PM 3:40 PM 5:40 PM per Stop TABLE 27: El Dorado County Transit Authority Average Weekday Iron Point Commuter Passengers EDC Fairgrounds Park and RideMissouri Flat Transfer Center 0.0 0.0 Ponderosa Road Park and Ride 0.0 Cambridge Road Park and Ride 0.0 El Dorado Hills Park and Ride 0.0 FLC - Folsom Campus Kaiser Permanente Iron Point Light Rail Station El Dorado Hills Park and Ride 0.0 Cambridge Road Park and Ride 0.0 Ponderosa Road Park and Ride 0.4 EDC Fairgrounds Park and Ride 0.0 Stops Missouri Flat Transfer Center 0.6 Source: EDCTA, 2007
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 75
– – $830 Fixed $7,877 $6,604 $3,673 $46,218 $37,885 $20,042 $12,018 $15,151 $40,869 $67,036 $75,282 $141,070 Hours 51,531 $61.90 $15,094 $19,811 $33,870 $832,929 $90,319 $186,921 $181,434 $19,674 Vehicle Service $0.89 Miles $3,041 $74,786 $16,290 $490,521 $172,364 $1,919,717 $208,166 $256,547 1,133,851 Vehicle Service $830 Total $7,877 $15,094 $46,218 $37,885 $20,042 $26,414 $12,018 $40,584 $40,869 $67,036 $75,282 $998,034 $490,521 $186,921 $256,547 $141,070 $4,996,038 $1,013,549 $3,189,776 $792,713 $2,300,247 Line Item TABLE 28: El Dorado County Transit Authority Cost Allocation Model, Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Claims Expenses Total Expenditures Unit Quantities Membership and Publications Staff Development and TrainingMiscellaneous $15,151 Cost Per Unit Equipments Rents Leases Uniforms Household Supplies Communications Office Expense Special Department Expense Salaries and Wages Employee Benefits Payroll taxes Utilities General Liability Insurance Fuel Worker's Compensation Insurance $217,398 Vehicle Maintenance Professional Services Small Tools and Equipment Source: EDCTA, FY 2006-07 Audit Report, Bartig, Basler & Ray, LLP.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 76 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
This equation can be used to estimate the cost of any changes in service, such as the operation of additional routes or changes in daily hours of operation. It will be used in subsequent tasks as part of this study to evaluate the cost impacts of service alternatives.
System Revenues
The revenue sources required to support EDCTA’s administration, operations and maintenance are drawn from a number of sources. As presented in Table 29, revenues have increased dramatically over the past five years. Interest revenue and Local Transportation Funds (LTF) funds have had the largest average annual increase, and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds varied the greatest over the period. In FY EDCTA received both FTA Section 5311 (for urbanized areas) and 5307 (for rural areas) operating grants as El Dorado Hills is included as part of the Sacramento Urbanized Area according to the Census. In FY 2007/08 EDCTA will receive $99,200 in AB 2766 (air quality improvement grants) funding for operation of the Apple Hill Shuttle and the Fair Shuttle. In general, total revenues increase significantly over the period, equating to an annual average increase of 11.1 percent.
FISCAL YEAR 2006/07 SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
To gain further insight into the efficiency and effectiveness of EDCTA services, it is useful to conduct an analysis of ridership and operating data on a service category basis. Ridership and operating statistics for FY 2006/07 were reviewed to identify average activity, marginal costs, allocated costs, allocated subsidy, fare box ratio, and average fares. Table 30 presents this breakdown of financial performance indicators for each type route/service.
Ridership
As presented in Figure 20 and Table 30, annual ridership by route/service ranges from a low of 147 on the South County deviated fixed-route to a high of 125,972 on the Sacramento Commuter service. Other relatively high ridership routes include the Placerville East/West service with 67,970 annual one-way passenger-trips, followed by the Diamond Springs/Cameron Park, Folsom Lake College routes (37,401 annual one-way passenger-trips), the DAR service (33,320 annual one-way passenger-trips), and the M.O.R.E. service (29,542 annual one-way passenger-trips). Total systemwide ridership for FY 2006/07 (excluding 37 passenger-trips from the Rancho Cordova service which only operated one month) was 360,622 one-way passenger-trips.
TABLE 29: El Dorado County Transit Authority Revenues, Fiscal Years 2002/03 through 2007/08 Average Fiscal Year Annual Line Item 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Increase
Passenger Fares $807,548 $975,317 $1,025,052 $1,049,788 $1,105,246 8.2% Charter Service Revenue $6,665 $10,502 $8,411 $6,288 $5,268 -5.7% Auxiliary Transportation Revenue $46,336 $26,146 $40,093 $55,195 $44,089 -1.2% Local Transportation Funds (LTF) $1,972,498 $1,711,057 $2,708,069 $3,206,381 $3,678,739 16.9% State Transit Assistance Funds (STA) $216,601 $208,758 $278,182 $319,722 $0 13.9% Other State Cash Grants $0 $31,000 $33,000 $33,000 $38,000 5.2% Federal Transit Administration Grants $565,417 $204,931 $206,616 $74,646 $610,023 1.9% Interest Revenue $49,642 $27,687 $46,947 $65,494 $105,298 20.7%
Total Operating Revenue $3,664,707 $3,195,398 $4,346,370 $4,810,514 $5,586,663 11.1%
Source: EDCTA, Fiscal Years 2002-03 through 2006-07.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 77
Allocated Operating Costs
The systemwide operating cost in FY 2006/07 was $4,996,038. Allocating fixed costs by the proportion of vehicle-hours of service, $1,608,692 in operating funds was required for the local route services, $1,266,486 was required for Commuter services and $1,370,651 was required for the DAR service. The operating cost by route and service is presented in Figure 21. Of the individual services, the DAR service required the greatest amount of operating funds ($1,350,838), followed by the Sacramento Commuter service ($847,418) and the Placerville East/West fixed-route service ($527,672).
Required Operating Subsidy
As presented in Table 30 and Figure 22, subtracting the systemwide farebox revenues of $1,105,339 from total operating costs indicates that the total operating subsidy required was $3,890,669. The DAR service required the greatest annual subsidy ($1,303,207), distantly followed by the combined Diamond Springs/Cameron Park/Folsom Lake College routes ($458,702), and the Placerville East/West service ($455,756). Figure 23 depicts the proportion of EDCTA’s total operating subsidy that can be attributed to each type of service. The local routes account for 35.6 percent of total operating subsidy, followed by DAR at 33.5 percent.
Farebox Recovery Ratio
The financial efficiency of a system can be measured by the farebox recovery ratio, which is illustrated in the table and compared by route/service category in Figure 24. The farebox recovery ratio is particularly important as a measurement for meeting the mandated minimums required for state Transportation Development Act funding. The systemwide farebox recovery ratio in FY 2006/07 was 22.12 percent. By service category (Table 30), the commuter services boasted the highest farebox recovery ratio (46.79 percent), followed by the contracted social services (40.55 percent) and the local and rural route services (12.05 percent). Farebox recovery ratio for the combined local and rural routes exceeded the mandatory systemwide 10 percent farebox recovery ratio. However, when reviewed separately (Figure 24), the Placerville Express, South County and Grizzly Flat routes are below 10 percent. The farebox recovery ratio for the Diamond Springs/Cameron Park/Folsom Lake College route was 10.39 percent, an improvement over the 8.27 percent farebox recovery ratio last year when the routes were operated with one bus. The low farebox return ratio for the Placerville Express is partially associated with a relatively low average fare per passenger-trip; this in turn may be due to a large number of free transfers from the other local routes and monthly pass users. It should be noted that the Sacramento Commuter farebox recovery ratio is relatively high in comparison with most other transit services in rural California, and significantly helps to ensure that the overall systemwide ratio exceeds the state requirements.
Operating Cost per Passenger-Trip
Another measure of each service’s financial efficiency is provided by the operating cost per one-way passenger-trip. The systemwide operating cost per one-way passenger-trip in FY 2006/07 was $13.85. As shown in Table 30 and Figure 25, Special Event Services such as the Apple Hill Shuttle and the Sacramento Commuter achieved the lowest cost per one-way passenger-trip ($3.64 and $6.67, respectively) followed by the Holly Jolly Trolley ($7.65) and the Placerville East/West route ($8.16). The Reverse Commuter and South County routes generated the highest operating cost per one-way passenger- trip ($95.70 and $90.79, respectively). It should be noted that the Reverse Commuter route consists almost entirely of bus trips that need to be operated as “deadhead” trips as part of the Sacramento Commuter service (though the cost allocation procedure assigns the full cost of the scheduled runs to this service). If this service were to be eliminated, most of the costs would still be incurred.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 78 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
1.17 12.0 $0.33 $7.20 $6.87 1,149 4.57% 11,778 13,797 $4,543 Special $94,784 $99,327 Subtotal Services Trolley Holly Jolly Shuttle Apple Hill Special Event Services 3.6 24.8 11.1 602 405 142 0.47 1.71 1.29 4,695 5,863 1,220 2,184 10,035 1,578 $2.08 -- -- 8.96% -- -- $23.22$21.14 $3.64 $3.64 $7.65 $7.65 $4,543 $0 $0 Shuttle $46,178 $36,541 $12,065 $50,721 $36,541 $12,065 Main Street 8.1 0.48 Rural $1.37 $11.40 $10.03 17,443 Routes 12.05% 291,575 141,076 Subtotal $193,856 Local and $1,414,836 $1,608,692 $176 South County Pines Grizzly Flat Pollock (1) 6.7 7.2 3.0 1.1 Springs, Shuttle Cameron Park, FLC Local and Rural Routes Express Placerville 0.84 0.40 0.40 0.28 0.12 0.04 10.9 5.8 $6.71 $15.21 $12.26 $12.18 $30.71 $89.59 $1.46 $0.29 $1.42 $1.72 $2.54 $1.20 $99,119 $4,179 $53,186 $35,680 $1,516 $455,756 $216,689 $458,702 $252,216 $18,303 $13,170 Placerville East/ West Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Trips Per VSM Farebox Recovery RatioOperating Cost Per TripSubsidy Per Trip 17.86%Trips Per VSH $8.16 1.89% $15.50 10.39% $13.69 12.39% 7.65% $13.90 1.32% $33.25 $90.79 Vehicle Service HoursVehicle Service Miles 6,243 80,988 2,445 35,698 5,548 92,986 73,505 2,875 4,967 199 3,431 133 Total Operating CostFarebox Revenues Subsidy Required $554,875 $220,868 $511,888 $287,896 $19,819 $13,346 One-Way Passenger-Trips 67,970 14,251 37,401Average Fare 20,711 596 147 TABLE 30: El Dorado County Transit Authority Operating Data and Performance Indicators - Local/Rural Routes Special Event Services (Page 1/2) Operating Data Performance Indicators Note 1: As the Diamond Springs and Cameron Park Routes were operated by same bus at beginning of Fiscal Year, all routes are combined for this table. Source: EDCTA Administrative Operations Reports, Fiscal Year 2006/2007.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 79
(2) 7.0 0.32 $3.06 $10.79 $13.85 51,531 22.12% Total 360,659 1,133,851 $4,996,038 $1,105,339 $3,890,699 EDCTA System 1.6 2.4 482 14,042 0.05 0.10 $4.49 $2.02 6.73% 4.92% $62.14 $39.11 $66.62 $41.14 $3,396 $67,444 14,749 319,318 $47,039 $1,303,207 SAC-MED Dial-A-Ride 6.2 0.29 $9.24 $6.30 6,246 Social $15.54 40.55% 131,709 Subtotal Services $243,470 $356,977 7.7 0.35 M.O.R.E. 3.8 0.19 Care 9,086 29,542 38,628 757 33,320 $1.14 $7.89 2,389 3,857 4.54% 62.52% $23.91 $4.73 $25.04 $12.62 48,011 83,698 $10,337 $233,133 $227,547 $372,900 $600,447 $50,435 $1,370,651 $217,210 $139,767 Senior Day Contracted Social Services 0.36 10.9 $5.06 $4.45 $9.52 12,169 46.79% 133,081 364,722 Subtotal Services $592,630 $673,856 Commuter $1,266,486 Rancho Cordova Iron Point Connector (1) Reverse Commuter Services Commuter 0.52 0.03 0.07 0.07 15.6 1.1 1.8 3.1 $2.09 $93.20 $53.49 $34.68 $4.58 $2.50 $2.23 $2.51 Sacto $263,826 $71,481 $337,266 $1,283 Commuter Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Trips Per VSM Trips Per VSH Total Operating Cost $840,410 $73,399 $351,301 $1,376 Subsidy Per Trip Farebox Revenues $576,584 $1,918 $14,035 $93 One-Way Passenger-Trips 125,972 767 6,305 37 Average Fare Farebox Recovery RatioOperating Cost Per Trip 68.61% $6.67 2.61% $95.70 4.00% $55.72 6.76% $37.19 Subsidy Required Vehicle Service HoursVehicle Service Miles 8,052 244,014 678 23,494 96,712 3,427 502 12 TABLE 30: El Dorado County Transit Authority Operating Data and Performance Indicators - Local/Rural Routes Special Event Services (Page 2/2) Operating Data Performance Indicators Note 1: Although the Reverse Commuter route is separated from Sacto to display marginal performance indicators, no additional costs are incurred by operating the Reverse route. Source: EDCTA Administrative Operations Reports, Fiscal Year 2006/2007.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 80 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
125,972 100,000 120,000 140,000 80,000 67,970 60,000 One-Way Passenger-Trips 37,401 40,000 33,320 29,542 20,711 20,000 14,251 Annual Ridership, Fiscal Year 2006-07 10,035 9,086 6,305 FIGURE 20: El Dorado County Transit Authority 2,184 1,578 767 757 596 147 0 M.O.R.E. SAC-MED Grizzly Flat Dial-A-Ride Pollock Pines South County Senior Day Care Apple Hill Shuttle Holly Jolly Trolley Placerville Express Main Street Shuttle Reverse Commuter Iron Point Connector Placerville East/ West Sacramento Commuter Diamond Springs, Cameron Park, FLC Shuttle
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 81
$1,370,651 $840,410 Annual Operating Cost $554,875 $511,888 $372,900 $351,301 $287,896 $227,547 $220,868 Annual Operating Cost, Fiscal Year 2006-07 $73,399 FIGURE 21: El Dorado County Transit Authority $50,721 $50,435 $36,541 $19,819 $13,346 $12,065 $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 M.O.R.E. SAC-MED Grizzly Flat Dial-A-Ride Pollock Pines South County Senior Day Care Apple Hill Shuttle Holly Jolly Trolley Placerville Express Main Street Shuttle Reverse Commuter Iron Point Connector Placerville East/ West Sacramento Commuter Diamond Springs, Cameron Park, FLC Shuttle
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 82 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
$1,303,207 Annual Operating Subsidy $458,702 $455,756 $337,266 $263,826 $252,216 $217,210 $216,689 $139,767 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $71,481 Annual Operating Subsidy, Fiscal Year 2006-07 FIGURE 22: El Dorado County Transit Authority $47,039 $46,178 $36,541 $18,303 $13,170 $12,065 $0 M.O.R.E. SAC-MED Grizzly Flat Dial-A-Ride Pollock Pines South County Senior Day Care Apple Hill Shuttle Holly Jolly Trolley Placerville Express Main Street Shuttle Reverse Commuter Iron Point Connector Placerville East/ West Sacramento Commuter Diamond Springs, Cameron Park, FLC Shuttle
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 83
17.3% 9.2% Commuter Contract 2.4% Special Event Operating Subsidy Local 35.6% 33.5% Dial-A-Ride 2.0% Other F IGURE 23: Proportion of Annual El Dorado County Transit Authority
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 84 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
100.00% 80.00% 68.61% 60.00% 40.00% Operating Farebox Recovery Ratio 17.86% 20.00% 12.39% 10.39% 8.96% 7.65% 6.73% 6.73% Farebox Recovery Ratio, Fiscal Year 2006-07 4.92% 4.92% FIGURE 24: El Dorado County Transit Authority 4.00% 2.61% 1.89% 1.32% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% M.O.R.E. SAC-MED Grizzly Flat Dial-A-Ride Pollock Pines South County Senior Day Care Apple Hill Shuttle Holly Jolly Trolley Placerville Express Main Street Shuttle Reverse Commuter Iron Point Connector Placerville East/ West Sacramento Commuter Diamond Springs, Cameron Park, FLC Shuttle
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 85
$120.00 $95.70 $100.00 $90.79 $80.00 $66.62 $66.62 $60.00 $55.72 $41.14 $41.14 Operating Cost / One-way Passenger-Trip $40.00 $33.25 $23.22 $20.00 $15.50 $13.90 $13.69 Operating Cost/Trip, Fiscal Year 2006-07 $8.16 $7.65 $6.67 FIGURE 25: El Dorado County Transit Authority $3.64 $0.00 M.O.R.E. SAC-MED Grizzly Flat Dial-A-Ride Pollock Pines South County Senior Day Care Apple Hill Shuttle Holly Jolly Trolley Placerville Express Main Street Shuttle Reverse Commuter Iron Point Connector Placerville East/ West Sacramento Commuter Diamond Springs, Cameron Park, FLC Shuttle
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 86 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Operating Subsidy per Passenger-Trip
When fare revenue is subtracted from the total cost and divided by the number of one-way passenger- trips, the subsidy required per one-way passenger-trip is calculated. This performance measure is particularly important, as it directly compares the most significant public “input” (public subsidy funding) with the most significant “output” (one-way passenger-trips). The system as a whole required a subsidy of $10.79 per one-way passenger-trip. As indicated in Figure 26, the Sacramento Commuter service requires only $2.09 in transit subsidy, followed by the Apple Hill Shuttle ($3.64) and the Placerville East/West route at $6.71. At the other extreme, the Reverse Commuter route required $93.20 for each one-way passenger-trip (fully allocating the cost of the scheduled trips to this service), followed by the South County route ($89.59).
Passenger-Trips per Vehicle-Hour of Service
An important measure of service effectiveness is “productivity,” defined as the number of one-way passenger-trips provided per vehicle service hour. As presented in the table, the system as a whole achieved a productivity of 7 one-way passenger-trips per vehicle service hour. Figure 27 shows that the Apple Hill Shuttle boasted the highest productivity (24.8), followed by the Sacramento Commuter route (15.6). The South County route and the Reverse Commute service attained the lowest productivity figure (1.1 one-way passenger-trips per vehicle service hour), followed by the SAC-MED and Senior Day Care Service (1.6 each) and IPC service (1.8).
Another measure of service effectiveness is the number of one-way passenger-trips provided per vehicle service mile. The systemwide average during the fiscal year was 0.32. By service category the Special Event Services provided the greatest number of one-way passenger-trips per vehicle service mile (1.17), followed by the local and rural routes (0.48) and the commuter services (0.37). See Figure 28 for details on each route and service.
TRANSIT CAPITAL ASSETS
Transit Operations/Maintenance Facility
The EDCTA’s operations and maintenance facility is located at 6565 Commerce Way in Diamond Springs. California State Proposition 116 and local transportation funds financed the acquisition of the office building, land, tenant improvement and construction of the maintenance facility. These facilities include a 4,999 square foot office building for the administrative and operations departments, as well as a 7,470 square foot maintenance facility. Employee parking at the operations and maintenance facility has reached capacity and as a result there are very limited parking spaces available for members of the public who visit the facility to purchase passes or attend meetings. Reflecting EDCTA operations, staff is on-site at this facility seven days a week. All EDCTA’s staff is based in this facility, which includes administrative offices, a transit dispatch center, driver’s check-in locker room, and employee breakroom. The conference room is also utilized for transit driver classroom training.
The maintenance facility includes 3 maintenance bays, drive-through bus wash, parts supply room, a mechanic’s breakroom, and the Senior Equipment Mechanic’s office. This facility includes 1 in-ground bus lift and 1 portable lift. The fully-fenced bus parking lot is striped to accommodate up to 62 vehicles. Fueling occurs off-site at Dawson Oil Company one-quarter mile away.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 87
$120.00 $100.00 $93.20 $89.59 $80.00 $62.14 $62.14 $60.00 $53.49 $39.11 $39.11 $40.00 Operating Subsidy / One-Way Passenger Trip $30.71 $21.14 $20.00 $15.21 $12.26 $12.18 $7.65 Operating Subsidy/Trip, Fiscal Year 2006-07 $6.71 FIGURE 26: El Dorado County Transit Authority $3.64 $2.09 $0.00 M.O.R.E. SAC-MED Grizzly Flat Dial-A-Ride Pollock Pines South County Senior Day Care Apple Hill Shuttle Holly Jolly Trolley Placerville Express Main Street Shuttle Reverse Commuter Iron Point Connector Placerville East/ West Sacramento Commuter Diamond Springs, Cameron Park, FLC Shuttle
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 88 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
30.0 24.8 25.0 20.0 15.6 15.0 11.1 10.9 10.0 One-Way Passenger Trips / Vehicle Service Hour 7.2 6.7 5.8 5.0 3.6 3.0 2.4 2.4 1.8 1.6 1.6 FIGURE 27: El Dorado County Transit Authority 1.1 1.1 Trips/Vehicle Service Hours, Fiscal Year 2006-07 0.0 M.O.R.E. SAC-MED Grizzly Flat Dial-A-Ride Pollock Pines South County Senior Day Care Apple Hill Shuttle Holly Jolly Trolley Placerville Express Main Street Shuttle Reverse Commuter Iron Point Connector Placerville East/ West Sacramento Commuter Diamond Springs, Cameron Park, FLC Shuttle
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 89
2.00 1.71 1.75 1.50 1.29 1.25 1.00 0.84 0.75 One-Way Passenger Trips / Vehicle Service Mile 0.52 0.47 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.28 0.25 0.12 0.10 0.10 FIGURE 28: El Dorado County Transit Authority Trips/Vehicle Service Miles, Fiscal Year 2006-07 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.00 M.O.R.E. SAC-MED Grizzly Flat Dial-A-Ride Pollock Pines South County Senior Day Care Apple Hill Shuttle Holly Jolly Trolley Placerville Express Main Street Shuttle Reverse Commuter Iron Point Connector Placerville East/ West Sacramento Commuter Diamond Springs, Cameron Park, FLC Shuttle
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 90 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Bus Stops and Bus Shelters
Over the last several years, EDCTA has been focusing on improving passenger amenities, including the placement of bus stop shelters. There are currently 20 bus stop locations with passenger shelters (and benches). Additionally, bus benches (without shelters) provided at 14 bus stops throughout the EDCTA system. Table 31 provides a listing of existing bus stops with shelters and benches (within El Dorado County) and Figure 29 presents bench and shelter locations graphically.
Vehicle Fleet
As of October 2007, the EDCTA vehicle fleet consisted of 9 EDCTA non-revenue vehicles and 55 revenue vehicles. As presented in Table 32 below, the revenue vehicles range in capacity from 3 to 45 passengers; all of the revenue vehicles are equipped with wheelchair lifts and securement positions. The average age of the revenue fleet is 4.76 years, and the average accumulated mileage is 165,126 per revenue vehicle. A total of 26 revenue vehicles are eligible for replacement in 2007 and an additional 14 will be eligible for replacement by the end of the planning period.
TABLE 31: El Dorado County Transit Authority Shelter and Bench Locations
Bus Stops with Shelters
Big 5/Placerville Dr - Placerville Market Ct. - Cameron Park Broadway and Schnell School Rd. - Placerville Marshall Hospital/Marshall Way - Placerville Cambridge Rd Park & Ride - Cameron Park Missouri Flat Transfer Cntr1 - Missouri Flat Rd. Cameron Park Dr./Green Valley Rd. - Cameron Park Placerville Library/Fair Ln. - Placerville Coloma Ct. - Placerville Placerville Station2/Mosquito Rd. - Placerville Cottonwood Senior Apts/Clay St. - Placerville Prospector Plaza/Missouri Flat Rd. - Placerville El Dorado Hills Park & Ride1/Post St. - El Dorado Hills Regal Theaters/Placerville Dr. - Placerville Forni Rd./Lo Hi Way - Placerville Safeway Plaza/Missouri Flat Rd. - Placerville Goldorado Cntr/Palmer Dr. - Cameron Park Safeway Plaza/Pony Express Trail - Pollock Pines Home Depot/Placerville Dr. - Placerville Tunnel Street Apts - Placerville Woodman Circle - Placerville
Bus Stops with Benches
Bldg. 1/Golden Cntr Ct. - Placerville Eskaton Lincoln Manor/Mother Lode Dr. - Placerville Broadway/Carson Rd. - Placerville Fowler Way - Placerville Big Lots (Fair Lane) Panther Ln. - Diamond Springs Carson Rd./Larsen Dr. - Camino Placerville Post Office/Sacramento St. Cold Springs Dental/Cold Springs Rd. - Placerville Placerville Senior Cntr2/Spring St. - Placerville Diamond Springs Mobile Home Park/China Garden Rd. Pleasant Valley Rd./Church St. - El Dorado DMV/Cold Springs Rd. - Placerville Pleasant Valley Rd./Diamond Meadows - Diamond Springs Rite Aid2/Broadway - Placerville
Note 1: Dual Shelters Note 2: Covered bench/benches Source: EDCTA
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 91
TABLE 32: El Dorado County Transit Authority Vehicle Inventory and Mileage
Vehicle Revenue/ Non- Capacity Replacement Mileage No. Backup Revenue Year Make/Model License Weight Length AMB/WC VIN Lift Year 10/12/07
Revenue Vehicles 9601 Yes R 1993 GMC Trolley29488 17,000 30 ***32/2 02284 Yes 2004 64926 9503 No R 1995 Bluebird Bus19805 25,480 40 **45/2 64542 Yes 2005 249408 9504 No R 1995 Bluebird Bus19806 25,480 40 **45/2 64543 Yes 2005 503934 9505 No R 1995 Bluebird Bus19812 25,480 40 **45/2 64544 Yes 2005 400339 9506 No R 1995 Bluebird Bus19826 25,480 40 **45/2 64545 Yes 2005 390043 9507 No R 1995 Bluebird Bus19804 25,480 40 **45/2 64546 Yes 2005 431469 9702 Yes R 1997 Ford El Dorado 990139 10,080 25 *20/2 41871 Yes 2004 216415 9701 No R 1997 Ford El Dorado 990138 10,160 25 *20/2 41872 Yes 2004 221533 9901 Yes R 1999 Dodge Van1001193 4,440 16 3/1 15513 Yes 2004 182626 9902 Yes R 1999 Dodge Van1001194 4,460 16 3/1 15517 Yes 2004 183637 9906 Yes R 1999 Ford El Dorado 1001290 10,380 25 *20/2 84061 Yes 2004 293633 9903 No R 1999 Ford El Dorado 1001196 10,220 25 *20/2 36565 Yes 2004 259544 9904 No R 1999 Bluebird Bus1040704 26,940 40 ***45/2 88546 Yes 2004 346047 9905 No R 1999 Ford El Dorado 1001289 10,140 25 *20/2 84060 Yes 2004 282381 9907 No R 1999 Ford El Dorado 1001288 10,360 25 *20/2 84062 Yes 2004 281495 0101 No R 2001 Thomas 1053744 36,220 40 ***45/2 00031 Yes 2011 286381 0102 No R 2001 Thomas 1053745 36,220 40 ***45/2 00032 Yes 2011 358064 0103 No R 2001 Ford El Dorado 1096110 10,160 25 *20/2 74150 Yes 2006 255905 0104 No R 2001 Ford El Dorado 1101407 10,300 25 *20/2 74148 Yes 2006 236394 0105 No R 2001 Ford El Dorado 1096112 10,280 25 *20/2 74151 Yes 2006 281827 0106 No R 2001 Ford El Dorado 1096111 10,680 25 *20/2 74147 Yes 2006 252360 0107 No R 2001 Ford El Dorado 1096113 10,240 25 *20/2 74149 Yes 2006 226676 0201 No R 2002 Ford El Dorado 1146446 10,360 25 *20/2 74139 Yes 2007 152952 0202 No R 2002 Ford El Dorado 1146445 10360 25 *20/2 74140 Yes 2007 212706 0203 No R 2002 Ford El Dorado 1146299 10360 25 *20/2 74138 Yes 2007 188173 0204 No R 2002 Thomas 1070147 36,220 40 ***45/2 19527 Yes 2012 262079 0205 No R 2002 Chevy Van 1124490 5,357 16 3/1 97969 Yes 2007 175882 0206 No R 2002 Chevy Van 1162552 5,357 16 3/1 03565 Yes 2007 180498 0207 No R 2002 Chevy Van 1162553 5,357 16 3/1 03580 Yes 2007 162392 0303 Yes R 2003 Ford El Dorado 1140642 10,400 25 *20/2 18234 Yes 2008 188381 0304 Yes R 2003 Ford El Dorado 1170641 10,320 25 *20/2 18235 Yes 2008 113111 0305 No R 2003 Ford Goshen1130183 10,292 25 *20/2 18288 Yes 2008 128582 0401 No R 2004 Chevy Van 1184371 5,357 16 3/1 06409 Yes 2008 107833 0502 No R 2005 Chevy Van 1208636 4,320 16 3/1 70426 Yes 2009 118970 0503 No R 2005 Chevy Van 1208635 4,320 16 3/1 71335 Yes 2009 99761 0504 No R 2005 Chevy Van 1208787 4,320 16 3/1 149065 Yes 2009 99712 0505 No R 2005 Chevy Van 1213045 4,320 16 3/1 97276 Yes 2009 60422 0610 Yes R 2006 Bluebird Bus1186545 25,320 35 **37/2 236595 Yes 2018 55635 0601 No R 2006 Bluebird Bus 1186550 26,800 40 **45/2 36592 Yes 2018 76858 0602 No R 2006 Bluebird Bus1211371 26,800 40 **45/2 36589 Yes 2018 76405 0603 No R 2006 Bluebird Bus1211287 26,800 40 **45/2 36593 Yes 2018 70795 0604 No R 2006 Bluebird Bus1211372 26,800 40 **45/2 36590 Yes 2018 50717 0605 No R 2006 Bluebird Bus1186559 26,800 40 **45/2 236591 Yes 2018 54969 0606 No R 2006 Bluebird Bus1186547 25,320 35 **37/2 236598 Yes 2018 57782 0607 No R 2006 Bluebird Bus1186548 25,320 35 **37/2 236596 Yes 2018 56853 0608 No R 2006 Bluebird Bus1186546 25,320 35 **37/2 236594 Yes 2018 7911 0609 No R 2006 Bluebird Bus1186544 25,320 35 **37/2 236597 Yes 2018 36740 0611 No R 2006 Chevy Van1241555 4,320 16 3/1 34978 Yes 2010 33732 0612 No R 2006 Chevy Van1241554 4,320 16 3/1 33689 Yes 2010 14959 0703 No R 2007 Chevy El Dorado 1258777 25,500 29 26/2 Unknown Yes 2014 5761 0704 No R 2007 Chevy El Dorado 1257876 25,500 29 26/2 Unknown Yes 2014 7270 0705 No R 2007 Chevy El Dorado 1257875 25,500 29 26/2 Unknown Yes 2014 9443 0706 No R 2007 Chevy El Dorado 1257902 25,500 29 26/2 Unknown Yes 2014 2143 0707 No R 2007 Chevy El Dorado 1257878 25,500 29 26/2 Unknown Yes 2014 5586 0708 No R 2007 Chevy El Dorado 1257968 25,500 29 26/2 Unknown Yes 2014 1928
Non-Revenue Vehicles 9509 Yes NR 1995 Ford Escort 13346 4,000 14 5/0 90462 No 2004 62566 0108 Yes NR 2001 Ford Taurus 1076664 4,500 16 5/0 41353 No 2005 35004 0109 Yes NR 2001 Ford Taurus 1076663 4,500 16 5/0 41355 No 2005 33080 0301 Yes NR 2003 Ford Taurus 1152129 4,500 16 5/0 15750 No 2007 17221 0302 Yes NR 2003 Ford Taurus 1152128 4,500 16 5/0 15751 No 2007 24429 0501 No NR 2005 Honda Civic 1187457 3,620 15 5/0 02919 No 2009 18132 M7055 No NR 2005 Ford Main. Van 1187453 8,520 20 0 05884 No 2009 9471 0701 No NR 2007 Chevy Sedan 1122810 4,320 16 5/0 293813 No 2011 1526 0702 No NR 2007 Dodge Pick-Up 1273150 4,540 16 3/0 242930 No 2011 1221 * Less 2 seats per wheelchair station ** Less 4 seats per wheelchair station *** Less 6 seats per wheelchair station
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 92 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 93
FIGURE 30: El Dorado County Transit Authority Weekday Vehicle Utilization by Route & Time of Day
Route 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM
Placerville Shuttle 1 Placerville Shuttle 2 Placerville Express Pollock Pines Diamond Springs Folsom Lake College Cameron Park Cameron Park 2 Sacramento Commuter 1 Sacramento Commuter 2 Sacramento Commuter 3 Sacramento Commuter 4 Sacramento Commuter 5 Sacramento Commuter 6 Sacramento Commuter 7 Sacramento Commuter 8 Sacramento Commuter 9 Sacramento Commuter 10 Sacramento Commuter 11 Sacramento Commuter 12 Iron Point Connector Dial-A-Ride 1 (1) Dial-A-Ride 2 (1)
Dial-A-Ride 3 (1)
Dial-A-Ride 4 (1)
Dial-A-Ride 5 (1)
Dial-A-Ride 6 (1)
Dial-A-Ride 7 (1)
Note 1: The Dial-A-Ride run sheets for Wednesday March 14, 2007 used for this analysis. = Reverse commute runs
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 94 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Figure 30 above illustrates the number of vehicles in operation by-hour of day by-route. Not included in Figure 30 are the cutaway vehicles designated for Social Service passengers only. As presented, during the first and last hour of EDCTA’s operational day, only the Sacramento Commuter service and IPC service is in operation. A maximum of 18 vehicles are in service at 4:15 PM. This occurs when both the DAR vans and PM commuter routes are in operation.
EL DORADO COUNTY TRANSIT AUTHORITY TRANSIT PASSENGER CHARACTERISTICS
Majic Consulting Group conducted onboard surveys on the local fixed-route service and commuter service between October 15 and 20, 2004. DAR and SAC-MED were surveyed for two weeks beginning on October 16, 2004, and telephone surveys were conducted between November 11 and 15, 2004. A total of 488 surveys were collected for all four types of services. The following are key results of the survey.
Demographics – Systemwide the majority of EDCTA transit riders are female. Commuter services attract riders between the ages of 21 and 64, the majority of DAR and SAC-MED passengers are over 65 years-old and local fixed-routes had a larger percentage of younger and older riders. Local route respondents are overwhelmingly transit dependent.
Travel Patterns – Over 90 percent of passengers on commuter services ride 14 or more times per month, generally for work purposes. Just over 50 percent of local route passengers ride the bus 4 or more times per week and the primary purpose of their trip is shopping. SAC-MED riders travel to medical appointments 3 to 11 times per year.
Customer Satisfaction – Overall, SAC-MED had the highest level of customer satisfaction and the commuter service had the lowest. The three top-ranked attributes on all four services were: (1) Safety onboard the vehicles and stops, (2) courtesy and competency of drivers and (3) cleanliness of vehicles (on SAC-MED on-time performance and reliability ranked slightly higher). Low-ranked attributes included reservation procedures for DAR, trip duration and service beginning times for SAC-MED, trip duration and service end times for the local routes and cost and closeness of stops to home, and crowding onboard buses on commuter routes.
Service Improvements (not already implemented) – Local route passengers suggested that additional bus stop locations in Pollock Pines/Camino be considered. Commuter service passengers identified the addition of new routes to ease crowding, increase frequency of service and provide more express service as potential improvements. DAR passengers suggested a review of the current reservation system to provide input regarding inefficiencies that may exist in the process and service into the evening hours.
OTHER TRANSIT PROVIDERS IN EL DORADO COUNTY
In addition to EDCTA, there are several other transportation providers serving Western El Dorado County. Summary descriptions of the available transportation services are described below.
Senior Shuttle Program
Operated by the El Dorado County Senior Nutrition Services Department, this program assists adults 60 years and older with grocery shopping trips two to three times each week and monthly outings to Senior Nutrition Dining Centers. There are 7 different Senior Dining Centers within Western El Dorado County: Placerville, Diamond Springs, Pollock Pines, Greenwood, Somerset, Shingle Springs, and El Dorado
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 95
Hills. Using volunteer drivers, 1 van is used to transport approximately 140 seniors each month. The Senior Shuttle Program operates in Placerville, Diamonds Springs, and is beginning service in El Dorado Hills. A fare of $ 2 per trip is charged for trips within the County and $5 is charged for out-of-county trips.
Snowline Hospice Volunteer Services
Snowline Hospice is a non-profit, community-based organization dedicated to meeting the unique physical, emotional, and spiritual needs of those who are nearing the end of their life. As part of the program, volunteers often provide transportation for consumers to medical appointments.
Placerville Advocacy, Vocational, and Educational Services (PAVES)
PAVES provides training in areas of self-help skills, advocacy, community integration, and pre- employment for adults with developmental disabilities. Volunteers provide transportation for consumers.
The Gates Recovery Foundation
The Gates Recovery Foundation offers detoxification services, substance abuse counseling, and recovery programs to those individuals who suffer from alcohol or drug addition. Volunteer transportation is provided.
United Cerebral Palsy (UCP) of Greater Sacramento
UCP provides adult day programs, transportation, in-home respite, independent living skills instruction, toy lending library, equine assisted therapy and sports program for people with cerebral palsy and other developmental disabilities. Specialized door-to-door transportation services are provided for consumers to educational or vocational programs.
El Dorado County Human Services Department - Adult Protective Services (APS)
The program is supervised by the California Department of Social Services and administered locally by the El Dorado County Department of Community Services. It provides assistance to elderly and dependent adults who are functionally impaired, unable to meet their own needs or are victims of abuse, neglect or exploitation. In addition to crisis intervention, other emergency services can be provided such as food, transportation (vouchers for El Dorado Transit), shelter, and referrals.
Vision Coalition of El Dorado Hills and Teen Advisory Committee
The mission of the Vision Coalition is to promote activities to keep youth safe, healthy, and free from drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. The Coalition organizes volunteer transportation. The Vision Coalition is interested in partnering with other agencies such as the senior center, other non-profits, and human services agencies to share transportation costs, and may also be a good recipient for retired transit vehicles.
New West Haven (Assisted Living)
New West Haven is a residential care facility for the elderly offering residents with assistance with the activities of daily living. The program includes arranging transportation to medical and dental appointments.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 96 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
50 Corridor Transportation Management Association (TMA)
The TMA promotes commuting alternatives by providing information for ridesharing and placement assistance to employers, individuals, developers, and other interested organizations.
DST Output (Employee Vanpool)
DST Output is a major employer in El Dorado County with over 1,000 employees. Employee vanpool services are provided by the company. Seven vans travel between Sacramento, Elk Grove, and the firm’s West Coast operation’s office in the El Dorado Hills area. Approximately 76 employees participate in the program.
Taxi and Limousine Services
There are several taxicab companies serving Western El Dorado County which operate 24-hour service. Although their main service area is the greater Placerville area, they will take customers to destinations as far as South Lake Tahoe and the Sacramento International Airport. Base fares range from $4 for the first 1.5 miles to $8 for the first 3.2 miles, with a cost of $2.50 for each additional mile or fraction thereof. Fares to the Airport range between $55 and $105 or more depending on the pick-up location. In addition to taxicab companies, there are several limousine companies that serve Western El Dorado County.
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
Amtrak Thruway
Amtrak Thruway feeder bus service is provided daily from the Placerville Station Transit Center to the Sacramento Amtrak station (as part of a longer route between Carson City Nevada and Sacramento).
Amtrak Thruway buses depart the Placerville Station at 3:45 PM. Eastbound service from Sacramento serves the Placerville Station at 11:00 AM, while westbound service is provided at 4:15 PM. Unique among the various Amtrak Thruway routes, passengers can ride this service without the requirement to connect to a rail trip.
Transportation to the Sacramento Airport
The closest major passenger airport to El Dorado County residents is Sacramento International Airport (SMF). The distance from Placerville to the airport is approximately 55 miles or 50 minutes (without traffic) if one travels by private vehicle. If a vehicle is not available or a traveler would like to use other forms of transportation to get to the airport there are three expensive or time-consuming options:
Gold Country Express – This private airport shuttle operates door-to-door service 24-hours a day. In addition to serving Placerville, Diamond Springs, Shingle Springs, and El Dorado Hills, the express serves communities as far east as Pollock Pines and as far north as Rescue. Residents of outlying communities such as Somerset would be required to make reservations. Reservations are accepted 24 hours in advance, except during the holiday season when two weeks notice is required. The trip to the airport via shuttle is not significantly longer than a trip via private automobile (one hour). Gold Country Express fares are as follows: $60 one-way and $110 round-trip for the general public, $55 one-way and $95 round-trip for seniors.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 97
EDCTA Commuter Route and Yolobus – A trip to the Sacramento Airport on public transit is much cheaper but much lengthier. One option would be to catch one of EDCTA’s Commuter routes to downtown Sacramento and alight at L Street and 14th Street, walk one block to the Yolobus stop at L Street and 13th Street where service is available to the airport. The entire trip from Placerville Station to the airport would take about two hours if a quick and timely connection is made between EDCTA Commuter route and Yolobus. It is likely, however, that a one-hour layover in downtown Sacramento would be required, thereby extending the trip one more hour. In order to make this trip, the traveler would need to schedule a flight departing Sacramento no earlier than 8:30 AM, as commuter buses run begin service at 5:30 AM. Afternoon departures would work as well but would require a longer layover at the airport, as the EDCTA commuter service does not operate between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM. In order to have the best chance of catching a bus home from the airport, a traveler would need to schedule their arrival time at SMF before 8:00 AM or between 1:00 PM and 4:00 PM. The one-way cost of this trip would be $5.50.
IPC, Sac RT Light Rail, and Yolobus – The second public transit option is to travel via the EDCTA IPC service, transfer to the Sac RT Light Rail service at the Iron Point Station, ride Light Rail to the 8th and K light rail station, walk several blocks to the L and 7th Yolobus stop, and ride the Yolobus route to the airport. The advantage of this option is that the IPC leaves El Dorado County on a more regular schedule (every two hours between 5:40 AM and 7:30 AM). As Sac RT Light Rail and Yolobus operate on half-hourly and hourly headways, there are fewer limitations on airport departure and arrival times. The disadvantage of this option is that total travel time from the El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride is 2 hours and 40 minutes if quick and timely connections are made between the IPC, light rail, and Yolobus. The cost of this trip is about $6 for an adult.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 98 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Chapter 4 Transit Demand Analysis
A key step in developing and evaluating transit plans is a careful analysis of the mobility needs of various segments of the population and the potential ridership on transit services. A good starting point for this analysis is to estimate the demand for transit and compare that with current services, thereby determining the total unmet transit needs. In this chapter, the scope and characteristics of existing and future (Year 2015) transit demand within the study area will be analyzed. The analysis makes intensive use of the demographic data and trends discussed previously.
Separate transit demand estimation techniques are available for rural and urban areas. Although El Dorado County as a whole is considered a rural county, rather densely populated urban areas and clusters exist within the County. The Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 3, Workbook for Estimating Demand for Rural Passenger Transportation, 1995 (which is used to estimate rural transit demand in this study) defines rural areas as those places outside of an urban area. In general, places meeting this definition:
Are outside a Metropolitan Statistical Area
Have a population density of less than 1,000 persons per square mile
As can be seen in Table 2 and Figure 2, census tracts including the El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park areas have a population of greater than 1,000 persons per square mile. Therefore transit demand is estimated for these areas using urban demand estimation techniques. It should be noted that the definition of rural verses urban in this document differs from the Census defined urbanized area boundaries where only El Dorado Hills is considered to be part of the Sacramento urbanized area. An urban transit demand analysis was considered appropriate for the densely populated census tracts in Cameron Park.
The demand for transit services in rural Western El Dorado County is considered in two components: “program” and “non-program.” Program transit trips are those associated with a function of the number of persons using a social service/human service agency type of program. Examples include sheltered workshops for the developmentally disabled and drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs. Non-program transit trips consist of all others, including general public trips for all purposes (work, school, shopping, and recreational).
NON-PROGRAM DEMAND ESTIMATION
In general, there are three ways in which total non-program transit demand may be estimated: (1) observed commuting usage, (2) analysis of survey data collected from passengers and residents in the community, and (3) regression models that have been developed based upon observed usage in similar communities.
All three of these estimation methods are reviewed and their demand estimates evaluated in this chapter. For all methods, 2000 serves at the base year, with data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. Future transit demand, as presented in Table 33, is estimated for year 2015 using population and employment growth projections obtained from the 2006 El Dorado County Economic and Demographic Profile (Center for Economic Development, CSU Chico).
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 99
8 8 0 0 52 58 34 71 27 72 42 18 41 30 47 23 20 83 27 158 210 206 107 266 274 104 154 Household 6 6 0 0 37 41 24 50 19 51 76 30 13 74 29 21 33 16 14 59 19 112 149 146 189 194 109 Zero-Vehicles Per 0 52 51 491 263 734 545 224 179 443 614 445 833 648 359 496 213 357 625 275 360 164 126 128 285 617 140 (2) Status 0 37 89 36 91 99 348 186 520 386 159 127 314 435 315 590 459 254 351 151 253 443 195 255 116 202 437 Persons Below Poverty 0 66 90 25 13 64 28 76 16 68 184 117 236 171 256 188 107 247 361 127 333 184 234 230 133 161 123 (1) Persons 0 9 83 47 64 76 18 90 45 20 54 94 11 48 87 130 167 121 181 133 175 256 236 130 166 163 114 Mobility Limited 980 727 1292 1518 1573 1011 60 and Over) 26 37 545 769 480 678 384 542 964 1361 825 1165 808 1141 474 669 980 1384 543 767 261 368 560 791 799 1128 1,222 1725 1,551 2190 1,057 1492 1,045 1475 1,093 1543 1,064 1502 1,231 1738 1,118 1578 Elderly Persons (Aged 58 80 972 1,349 2,156 2,992 1,156 1,604 2,219 3,080 2,243 3,113 1,130 1,568 1,164 1,616 2,171 3,013 1,874 2,601 1,528 2,121 2,153 2,988 2,297 3,188 2,520 3,498 2,084 2,892 1,337 1,856 2,551 3,541 915 4,579 6,355 1,075 2,714 3,767 2,783 3,863 1,114 1,781 2,472 3,430 4,760 694 2,784 3,864 716 2,587 3,590 515 1,231 1,709 2,434 3,378 2,193 3,044 Households Employed Persons 49 69 895 1,264 803 1,134 666 940 2,066 2,917 1,013 1,430 2,316 3,270 2,004 2,829 1,863 2,630 1,923 2,715 1,358 1,917 1,832 2,586 2,135 3,014 2,367 3,342 1,555 2,195 1,002 1,415 1,988 2,807 3,217 4,542 2,051 2,896 2,176 3,072 1,275 1,800 2,248 3,174 1,938 2,736 1,783 2,517 1,108 1,564 2,149 3,034 1,674 2,363 Population 94 133 2000 2015 2000 2015 2000 2015 2000 2015 2000 2015 2000 2015 2000 2015 5,273 7,445 2,635 3,720 5,643 7,967 5,298 7,480 2,2412,438 3,164 3,442 4,847 6,843 4,644 6,557 3,403 4,804 4,824 6,811 5,084 7,178 5,750 8,118 2,709 3,825 9,173 12,951 5,199 7,340 5,795 8,182 5,758 8,129 3,730 5,266 1,905 2,690 5,442 7,683 2,787 3,935 5,786 8,169 4,607 6,504 122,257 172,607 45,454 64,174 56,129 77,901 22,059 31,144 2,718 3,837 6,848 9,668 1,517 2,139 Description Western El Dorado County Totals Shaded Areas Represent Urban Tract 315.04 Deer Park Area 315.03 Kingsville / Nashville 315.02 South Missouri Flat Area 314.06 Fresh Pond / Pleasant Valley 314.05 Rancho Del Sol / Gold Ridge 314.04 Newton / Old Fort Jim 314.03 Southeast County 314.02 Somerset / Mt. Aukum 313.02 N. Pollock Pines / Cedar Grove 313.01 Smith Flat / Camino 312.00 South Placerville 311.00 North Placerville 310.00 Northwest Placerville 309.02 N. Greenstone / Missouri Flat Area 4,367 6,166 309.01 Coloma / Lotus Road Area 308.06 Central Cameron Park 308.05 West Cameron Park 308.04 Shingle Springs / Frenchtown 308.03 East Cameron Park 308.01 Deer Valley / Rescue 307.04 Clarksville / Latrobe 307.03 Greenvalley Acres / Oak Ridge Village 7,059 9,966 307.02 Hidden Valley / Crescent Ridge Village 5,766 8,141 307.01 Zee Estates / Lakeridge Oaks 306.03 North Central County 306.02 Greenwood / Garden Valley 306.01 Pilot Hill / Cool Census TABLE 33: Western El Dorado County Demographic Projections (2015) by Census Tract Note 1: Mobility Limited includes persons aged 16 to 64. Note 2: Poverty Status includes persons aged 0 to 64. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000; 2006 El Dorado County Economic and Demographic Profile, Center for Development CSU Chico.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 100 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Observed Commuting Usage
The first methodology, observed commuting usage, is based on nationally-recognized trip-making averages as they relate to various demographic factors, such as the number of employed persons and the total population. Two of these types of estimates are presented below.
Employee Transit Use for Urban Core
Employee transit use is important to EDCTA. Sacramento Area Council of Governments onboard surveys indicated that approximately 30 to 40 percent of EDCTA passengers used the bus for work purposes in 2006. Within the category of “observed commuting usage methods,” one method is to use the average percentage of employees who commute by transit as an indicator of the demand for work commute trips. Generally, national averages for similar communities are used for this method and fall in a range between 1.8 to 3.5 percent of a community’s total number of employees. Each employee is assumed to make two trips for each work day, or approximately 250 days per year.
In 2000, 18,714 employed persons who worked outside the home resided in the urbanized core area of Western El Dorado County. Using this figure, a total study area demand of 187,140 annual one-way transit trips is estimated, as follows:
18,714 x 2 x 250 = 9,357,000 total annual one-way person trips (all modes) 9,357,000 x 2.0 percent = 187,140 annual one-way transit trips
Table 34 below presents these demand calculations for the urban core area for 2000 and 2015. As presented, the combined demand for the study area for the year 2015 is 259,730 one-way transit work trips.
TABLE 34: Western El Dorado County Employee Transit Use Method of Urban Demand Estimation
Demand Density (3)
% of 2010 Census Employment (1) Estimated Transit Demand (2) Regional Area Area Description 2000 2015 2000 2015 2015 Demand
El Dorado Hills 307.01 Zee Estates / Lakeridge Oaks 2,587 3,590 25,870 35,900 6,957 13.8% 307.02 Hidden Valley / Crescent Ridge Village 2,784 3,864 27,840 38,640 7,983 14.9% 307.03 Greenvalley Acres / Oak Ridge Village 3,430 4,760 34,300 47,600 4,024 18.3%
Cameron Park 308.03 East Cameron Park 2,783 3,863 27,830 38,630 4,110 14.9% 308.05 West Cameron Park 4,579 6,355 45,790 63,550 15,808 24.5% 308.06 Central Cameron Park 2,551 3,541 25,510 35,410 19,456 13.6%
Urban Core Total 18,714 25,973 187,140 259,730 58,339 100.0%
Note 1: 2000 data based on 2000 U.S. Census population (employed persons) and 2015 based on LSC estimates using 2006 El Dorado County Economic and Demographic Profile growth projections. Note 2: Demand estimates assume that the percentage of employees using transit is 2.0 percent in western El Dorado County. Note 3: Demand density is measured in terms of one-way passenger-trips per square mile per year. Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 101
Long-Range Commuter Growth
Although the planning horizon for this plan is five years, it is worthwhile noting the potential for commuter transit demand in the long term. The El Dorado Hills Business Park is planned to host over 12,000 workers in the next 20 years. This represents an increase of approximately 7,000 workers over employment levels in 2005. Additionally, SACOG projects that employment in El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park will increase by 36,000 employees from 2005 to 2032.
Modal Split Countywide
Within the category of “observed commuting usage methods,” the second demand estimation method relies on the national percentage of all trips (as opposed to employee work trips) made by public transit as a mode. National statistics indicate that between 0.5 percent and 1.2 percent of all trips are made on public transit where it is available, and each person makes an average of 3.5 trips (private vehicle/bike/bus) per day.
Considering the existing service coverage in the study area, the optimal modal split within the urbanized core area (El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park areas) is estimated to be 1.0 percent, and 0.5 percent for the remainder of Western El Dorado County, if a very high level of transit service could be provided. Using these figures, demand for the urban core area can be estimated at 490,990 annual one-way transit trips in 2000, as presented:
38,434 persons x 365 days/year x 3.5 trips/day = 49,099,435 total trips 49,099,435 trips x 1.0 percent = 490,990 annual one-way transit trip per year
Similarly, the rural demand outside the urban core for 2000 is estimated at 535,400 annual one-way passenger-trips. The combined regional total for 2000 is 1,026,390 annual one-way passenger-trips. Table 35 presents estimates for the urban core and rural areas by census tract. Estimates are also provided in this table for 2015. Based on this method and using the region’s projected 2015 population of 172,607 persons, the region’s demand will be approximately 1,449,140 annual one-way transit trips per year, if a very high level of service could be provided. Of the total 2015 demand, 47.8 percent will be within the urban core area, and 52.2 percent will be in the remainder of the study area.
Elderly and Disabled Transit Demand – Urban Core
The most thorough analysis of transit demand among the elderly and disabled segments of the urban population was developed by Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Company, as described in Description of the Transportation Handicapped Population (1975). This methodology derives the elderly and disabled transit demand as:
E and D Trips per Year = Elderly and Disabled Population x [(25 percent x 5.2 trips per week) + (5 percent x 1.4 trips per week)] x 35 percent by transit mode x 51 weeks per year
Applying the total urban area 2000 population estimates of 5,029 elderly and 606 persons with a mobility limitation disability, this equation yields a total estimate of 137,800 urban area elderly/disabled transit trips per year.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 102 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
TABLE 35: Western El Dorado County Modal Split Method of Demand Estimation
Demand Density (3)
% of 2015 (1) (2) Population Estimated Transit Demand Regional Census Tract 2000 2015 2000 2015 2015 Demand
Urban Core
El Dorado Hills Census Tracts 18,267 25,790 233,360 329,470 15,090 22.7% Cameron Park Census Tracts 20,167 28,473 257,630 363,740 23,870 25.1%
Urban Core Subtotal 38,434 54,263 490,990 693,210 38,960 47.8%
Rural Area
Pilot Hill / Cool 4,607 6,504 29,430 41,550 652 2.9% Greenwood / Garden Valley 5,786 8,169 36,960 52,180 378 3.6% North Central County 2,787 3,935 17,800 25,130 52 1.7% Clarksville / Latrobe 1,905 2,690 12,170 17,180 310 1.2% Deer Valley / Rescue 3,730 5,266 23,830 33,640 1,410 2.3% Shingle Springs / Frenchtown 5,758 8,129 36,780 51,930 1,940 3.6% Coloma / Lotus Road Area 2,709 3,825 17,300 24,430 970 1.7% N. Greenstone / Missouri Flat Area 4,367 6,166 27,890 39,380 2,020 2.7% Northwest Placerville 5,750 8,118 36,730 51,850 4,990 3.6% North Placerville 5,084 7,178 32,470 45,850 3,220 3.2% South Placerville 4,824 6,811 30,810 43,500 5,380 3.0% Smith Flat / Camino 3,403 4,804 21,740 30,690 1,710 2.1% N. Pollock Pines / Cedar Grove 4,644 6,557 29,660 41,880 3,280 2.9% Somerset / Mt. Aukum 4,847 6,843 30,960 43,710 140 3.0% Southeast County 94 133 600 850 0 0.1% Newton / Old Fort Jim 2,241 3,164 14,310 20,210 1,280 1.4% Rancho Del Sol / Gold Ridge 2,438 3,442 15,570 21,990 2,010 1.5% Fresh Pond / Pleasant Valley 5,298 7,480 33,840 47,780 1,590 3.3% South Missouri Flat Area 5,643 7,967 36,040 50,890 4,970 3.5% Kingsville / Nashville 2,635 3,720 16,830 23,760 620 1.6% Deer Park Area 5,273 7,445 33,680 47,550 2,080 3.3% Rural Area Subtotal 83,823 118,345 535,400 755,930 39,002 52.2%
Study Area Total 122,257 172,607 1,026,390 1,449,140 77,962 100.0%
Note 1: Data based on LSC estimates using El Dorado County Economic and Demographic Profile, Center for Economic Development CSU Chico growth projections. Note 2: Demand estimates assume that the percentage of all trips made using transit is 1.0 percent in the urbanized area of western El Dorado County and 0.5 percent in the rural areas. Note 3: Demand density is measured in terms of one-way passenger-trips per square mile per year. Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 103
NON-PROGRAM RURAL DEMAND ESTIMATION
While the methods presented above are capable of providing estimates regionally, improved methods have been devised in recent years for rural areas. An important source of information regarding demand generated by programs is the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Project B-3: Rural Transit Demand Estimation Techniques. This study, conducted in 1996 by SG Associates and LSC Transportation Consultants, represents the first substantial research into demand for transit service in rural areas and small communities since the early 1980s.
Study documents present a series of formulae relating the number of participants in various types of programs with the observed actual demand for service, based upon a database of 185 transit agencies across the country. The TCRP analytical technique uses a “logit model” approach to the estimation of transit demand, similar to that commonly used in urban transportation models. This model incorporates an exponential equation that relates the quantity of services and the demographics of the area.
As with any other product or service, the demand for transit services is a function of the level of supply provided. To use the TCRP methodology to identify a feasible maximum demand, it is necessary to assume a high supply level, as measured in vehicle service miles of annual transit service per square mile of service area. A review of the transit database presented in the TCRP documents indicates 6,500 vehicle service miles per square mile per year is the upper-bound “density” of similar services provided in this country. This assessment of demand for the rural to urbanizing areas, therefore, could be considered to be the maximum potential ridership if a high level of rural service were made available throughout the region.
For the rural areas of Western El Dorado County, a reasonable maximum level of service would be to serve every portion of the County with four transit trips of transit service daily, Monday through Friday. This equates to approximately 1,000 vehicle-miles of transit service per square mile per year. The study area input data for this model are presented in Table 36, including land area and population data. Applying this feasible maximum service density to the population of the rural areas outside the Western El Dorado County urban core yields the 2000 estimated transit demand for the general population, as well as the elderly and mobility limited populations, as presented in Table 37. Table 38 presents the 2015 input data for the rural areas, with Table 39 providing the corresponding 2015 demand estimates. The estimated rural demand for 2000 is 78,390 annual one-way passenger-trips increasing to 110,630 annual one-way passenger-trips in 2015. Of the 2015 estimate, 81,190 are trips by elderly persons, 8,750 are trips by disabled persons, and the remaining 20,690 are trips by general public riders. The census tract with the greatest demand throughout the planning period is in the South Placerville area.
SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAM-RELATED TRANSIT DEMAND
In areas such as Western El Dorado County, the transit trips made by residents to and from specific social programs (such as for job training or sheltered workshops) typically comprise a large part of the total transit demand. This demand differs from other types of demand in that it is specifically generated by each program.
Annual program demand was estimated by using the TCRP Project B-3: Rural Transit Demand Estimation Techniques, based upon the number of participants in each program. As presented in Table 40, total countywide demand of annual program trips is 881,400. This figure largely consists of potential demand for travel to and from group homes, mental health services, Head Start, job training and developmental services programs, and many of these trips are likely already being directly provided by
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 104 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
TABLE 36: Transit Cooperative Research Program Method of Rural Demand Estimation – 2000 Data Inputs Western El Dorado County (Not Including El Dorado Hills or Cameron Park)
Total Land Total Number Mobility- Below- Census Area Population of Elderly Limited Poverty Tract Area Description (sq. mi.) (Persons) Age 60+ Population Population
306.01 Pilot Hill / Cool 63.6 4,607 799 87 99 306.02 Greenwood / Garden Valley 137.8 5,786 1,118 114 437 306.03 North Central County 474.7 2,787 560 48 202 307.04 Clarksville / Latrobe 55.3 1,905 261 20 116 308.01 Deer Valley / Rescue 23.9 3,730 543 163 37 308.04 Shingle Springs / Frenchtown 26.7 5,758 980 130 195 309.01 Coloma / Lotus Road Area 25.1 2,709 474 9 151 309.02 N. Greenstone / Missouri Flat Are 19.5 4,367 808 90 351 310 Northwest Placerville 10.4 5,750 1,231 256 254 311 North Placerville 14.2 5,084 1,064 18 459 312 South Placerville 8.1 4,824 1,093 175 590 313.01 Smith Flat / Camino 17.9 3,403 825 76 315 313.02 N. Pollock Pines / Cedar Grove 12.8 4,644 1,045 133 435 314.02 Somerset / Mt. Aukum 305.7 4,847 964 181 314 314.03 Southeast County 190.6 94 26 0 0 314.04 Newtown / Old Fort Jim 15.8 2,241 384 64 127 314.05 Rancho Del Sol / Gold Ridge 10.9 2,438 480 47 159 314.06 Fresh Pond / Pleasant Valley 30.0 5,298 1,057 121 386 315.02 South Missouri Flat Area 10.2 5,643 1,551 167 520 315.03 Kingsville / Nashville 38.3 2,635 545 83 186 315.04 Deer Park Area 22.8 5,273 1,222 130 348
Rural Study Area Total 1,514.4 83,823 17,030 2,112 5,681
Source: US Census 2000.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 105
0.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 2.7 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 1.6 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.0 2.1 1.3 2.8 0.2 0.1 0.0 Density Daily Demand Miles per Day) (Trips per Sq.) Estimated Daily Transit Demand 90 0 0.1% 0 90 Elderly + 0 Mobility Mobility General Estimated Annual Passenger-Trip Demand 90 880 60 940 300 1,240 5 1.6% 4,130 380 4,510 900 5,410 21 6.9% 3,260 530 3,790 810 4,600 18 5.9% 5,2401,840 490 240 5,730 2,080 1,340 480 7,070 2,560 28 10 9.0% 3.3% 1,300 190 1,490 330 1,820 7 2.3% 2,790 220 3,010 810 3,820 15 4.9% 3,5903,690 50 510 3,640 4,200 1,180 1,520 4,820 5,720 19 22 6.1% 7.3% 1,8301,600 480 30 2,310 1,630 100 390 2,410 2,020 9 8 3.1% 2.6% 4,160 750 4,910 660 5,570 22 7.1% 2,7003,7801,890 260 330 140 2,960 4,110 2,030 260 1,130 520 3,220 5,240 2,550 13 21 10 4.1% 6.7% 3.3% Elderly Limited Limited Public Total # Regional % Rural Study Area Total 57,530 6,190 63,720 14,670 78,390 307 100.0% 311 North Placerville 312 South Placerville 310 Northwest Placerville Tract Area Description 315.04 Deer Park Area 315.03 Kingsville / Nashville 314.05 Rancho Del Sol / Gold Ridge314.06 Fresh Pond / Pleasant Valley 315.02 South Missouri Flat Area 1,620 3,570 140 360 1,760 3,930 410 1,000 2,170 4,930 19 9 6.3% 2.8% 313.02 N. Pollock Pines / Cedar Grove314.02 Somerset / Mt. Aukum 314.03 Southeast County 314.04 3,530 Newtown / Old Fort Jim 390 3,920 1,120 5,040 20 6.4% 308.01 Deer Valley / Rescue 308.04 Shingle Springs / Frenchtown309.01 Coloma / Lotus Road Area 309.02 N. Greenstone / Missouri Flat Area 3,310 2,730313.01 380 Smith Flat / Camino 260 3,690 2,990 500 910 4,190 3,900 16 15 5.3% 5.0% 306.01 Pilot Hill / Cool 306.02 Greenwood / Garden Valley 306.03 North Central County 307.04 Clarksville / Latrobe Census TABLE 37: Transit Cooperative Research Program Method of Rural Demand Estimation – 2000 Estimates Western El Dorado County (Not Including Hills or Cameron Park) Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 106 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
0 52 445 443 179 491 140 213 496 359 648 833 614 545 734 617 285 164 275 224 263 0 90 13 25 68 28 66 230 117 Population Population 37 Total 6,811 1,543 247 (Persons) Age 60+ 8.1 15.8 3,16422.8 542 7,445 1,725 184 17.9 4,804 1,165 107 63.6 6,504 1,128 123 25.110.414.2 3,825 8,118 7,178 669 1,738 1,502 361 30.0 7,480 1,492 171 10.2 7,967 2,190 236 55.3 2,690 368 26.7 8,129 1,384 184 23.9 5,266 767 10.938.3 3,442 3,720 678 769 Area Population of Elderly Limited Poverty Land Total Number Mobility- Below- 305.7 6,843 1,361 256 190.6 133 137.8474.7 8,169 3,935 1,578 791 161 (sq. mi.) Area Description Rural Study Area Total 1,514.4 118,345 24,044 2,982 8,021 310 Northwest Placerville 311 North Placerville 312 South Placerville 306.01 Pilot Hill / Cool 306.03 North Central County 306.02 Greenwood / Garden Valley 309.01 Coloma / Lotus Road Area 309.02 N. Greenstone / Missouri Flat Area 19.5 6,166 1,141 127 313.02 N. Pollock Pines / Cedar Grove314.03 Southeast County 314.04 Newtown / Old Fort Jim 12.8314.05 Rancho Del Sol / Gold Ridge 314.06 Fresh Pond / Pleasant Valley 6,557315.04 Deer Park Area 1,475 188 313.01 Smith Flat / Camino 314.02 Somerset / Mt. Aukum 315.02 South Missouri Flat Area 315.03 Kingsville / Nashville 307.04 Clarksville / Latrobe 308.04 Shingle Springs / Frenchtown 308.01 Deer Valley / Rescue Tract Census TABLE 38: Transit Cooperative Research Program Method of Rural Demand Estimation – 2015 Data Inputs Western El Dorado County (Not Including Hills or Cameron Park) Source: 2006 El Dorado County Economic and Demographic Profile, Center for Development CSU Chico LSC .
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 107
TABLE 39: Transit Cooperative Research Program Method of Rural Demand Estimation – 2015 Estimates Western El Dorado County (Not Including El Dorado Hills or Cameron Park)
Estimated Annual Passenger-Trip Demand Daily Demand Elderly + Estimated Daily Density Census Mobility Mobility General Transit Demand (Trips per Sq.) Tract Area Description Elderly Limited Limited Public Total # Regional % Miles per Day)
306.01 Pilot Hill / Cool 3,810 360 4,170 360 4,530 17.8 4.1% 0.3 306.02 Greenwood / Garden Valley 5,330 470 5,800 1,590 7,390 29.0 6.7% 0.2 306.03 North Central County 2,670 200 2,870 740 3,610 14.2 3.3% 0.0 307.04 Clarksville / Latrobe 1,240 80 1,320 420 1,740 6.8 1.6% 0.1 308.01 Deer Valley / Rescue 2,590 680 3,270 130 3,400 13.3 3.1% 0.6 308.04 Shingle Springs / Frenchtown 4,670 540 5,210 710 5,920 23.2 5.4% 0.9 309.01 Coloma / Lotus Road Area 2,260 40 2,300 550 2,850 11.2 2.6% 0.4 309.02 N. Greenstone / Missouri Flat Are 3,850 370 4,220 1,280 5,500 21.6 5.0% 1.1 310 Northwest Placerville 5,870 1,060 6,930 930 7,860 30.8 7.1% 3.0 311 North Placerville 5,070 70 5,140 1,670 6,810 26.7 6.2% 1.9 312 South Placerville 5,210 730 5,940 2,150 8,090 31.7 7.3% 3.9 313.01 Smith Flat / Camino 3,930 320 4,250 1,150 5,400 21.2 4.9% 1.2 313.02 N. Pollock Pines / Cedar Grove 4,980 550 5,530 1,580 7,110 27.9 6.4% 2.2 314.02 Somerset / Mt. Aukum 4,600 750 5,350 1,140 6,490 25.5 5.9% 0.1 314.03 Southeast County 120 0 120 0 120 0.5 0.1% 0.0 314.04 Newtown / Old Fort Jim 1,830 270 2,100 460 2,560 10.0 2.3% 0.6 314.05 Rancho Del Sol / Gold Ridge 2,290 190 2,480 580 3,060 12.0 2.8% 1.1 314.06 Fresh Pond / Pleasant Valley 5,040 500 5,540 1,410 6,950 27.3 6.3% 0.9 315.02 South Missouri Flat Area 7,400 690 8,090 1,890 9,980 39.1 9.0% 3.8 315.03 Kingsville / Nashville 2,600 340 2,940 680 3,620 14.2 3.3% 0.4 315.04 Deer Park Area 5,830 540 6,370 1,270 7,640 30.0 6.9% 1.3
Rural Study Area Total 81,190 8,750 89,940 20,690 110,630 433.8 100.0% 0.3
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
TABLE 40: El Dorado County Program-Related Transit Demand
Feasible Number Annual Feasible Number of Rides Program Type Criteria Participants Urban Rural Total
Development Services: Adult Actual # Participants 36 6,500 7,290 13,790 Group Home Actual # Participants 146 21,810 24,440 46,250 Headstart Actual # Participants 370 45,890 51,420 97,310 Headstart: Homebase Actual # Participants 90 1,300 1,450 2,750 Headstart: Other Actual # Participants 218 190 220 410 Job Training Actual # Participants 400 25,840 28,960 54,800 Mental Health Services Actual # Participants 1,700 278,170 311,730 589,900 Nursing Home/ Senior Services Actual # Participants 540 3,100 3,480 6,580 Senior Nutrition Actual # Participants 240 28,070 31,450 59,520 Sheltered Workshop Actual # Participants 25 4,530 5,070 9,600 Substance Abuse Actual # Participants 560 230 260 490
Total Potential Ridership 415,630 465,770 881,400
Note: Demand estimates based on the methodology presented in "TCRP Report 3: Workbook for Estimating Demand for Rural Passenger Transportation."
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 108 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
EDCTA either as part of the general public services or as part of contracted services. Again, the reader is cautioned that this number reflects the demand if a very high level of service was possible to every portion of the County.
SUMMARY OF SHORT-RANGE TRANSIT DEMAND
A summary of the various elements of transit demand in Western El Dorado County in 2000 is presented in Table 41 and in Figures 31 and 32. As indicated, total transit demand is split into urban (El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park) and rural (the remainder of Western El Dorado County). The combined urban and rural total transit demand within Western El Dorado County is estimated to equal 1,824,930 annual one-way passenger-trips if a very high level of service could be provided. It should be emphasized, however, that these numbers represent a maximum potential under optimal service conditions throughout Western El Dorado County. It is not financially feasible to expect that the transit services that serve Western El Dorado County could ever approach this level of service.
In the urban area, the largest portion of estimated demand is generated by Social Service program-related transit demand (45.8 percent), followed by commuter transit demand (20.6 percent), other non-program demand (18.3 percent), and elderly and disabled demand (15.2 percent). In the rural portion of Western El Dorado County, program demand comprised the greatest proportion of demand (50.7 percent), followed by other non-program demand (42.3 percent), elderly demand (6.3 percent), and disabled demand (less than 1 percent).
The LSC Team applied the results of the 2005 EDCTA onboard survey results prepared by Majic Consulting Group to FY 2006/07 EDCTA ridership in order to allocate transit trips to each passenger type and trip purpose. This table also presents data regarding how well transit demand is being met in Western El Dorado County. Overall, as presented in Table 41, EDCTA is meeting approximately 16.0 percent of total urban transit demand and 23.5 percent of total rural demand in Western El Dorado County. Again, it is important to note that it is not financially feasible to expect that the transit services could meet all transit demand in the region.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 109
TABLE 41: Summary of Western El Dorado County Transit Demand
Type of Trip Elderly / Other Non- Total Non- (1) (2) (3) URBAN ESTIMATES Work Disabled Program Program Program TOTAL
2000 Urban Demand Estimates Urban W. El Dorado County 187,140 137,800 166,050 490,990 415,630 906,620
2000 Urban Ridership EDCTA – Urban 107,493 2,795 9,316 119,605 25,182 144,786
2000 Urban Unmet Demand Urban W. El Dorado County 79,647 135,005 156,734 371,385 390,448 761,834
Percent of Urban Demand Met: 2000 Urban W. El Dorado County 57.4% 2.0% 5.6% 24.4% 6.1% 16.0% Type of Trip Other Non- Total Non- (3) RURAL ESTIMATES Elderly Disabled Program Program Program TOTAL
2000 Rural Demand Estimates Rural W. El Dorado County 57,530 6,190 388,820 452,540 465,770 918,310
2000 Rural Ridership EDCTA – Rural 33,820 4,230 131,053 169,103 46,770 215,873 2000 Rural Unmet Demand Rural W. El Dorado County 23,710 1,960 257,767 283,437 419,000 1,032,021
Percent of Rural Demand Met: 2000 Rural W. El Dorado County 58.8% 68.3% 33.7% 37.4% 10.0% 23.5%
Total Non- (3) 2015 TOTAL STUDY AREA ESTIMATES Program Program TOTAL
2015 Demand Estimates Urban W. El Dorado County 693,200 586,800 1,280,000 Rural W. El Dorado County 638,910 657,590 1,296,500 Subtotal 1,332,110 1,244,390 2,576,500
2015 Unmet Demand If Transit Service Are Unchanged from 2000 Urban W. El Dorado County 573,595 561,618 1,135,214 Rural W. El Dorado County 469,807 610,820 1,080,627 Subtotal 1,043,403 1,172,438 2,215,841
Note 1: Based upon employee trip estimation methodology. Note 2: Mode split methodology minus employee trip methodology for urban core, TCRP methodology and employee trip methodology in rural areas. Note 3: TCRP methodology; allocated based on proportion of urban vs. rural demographics, factored up 50 percent for urban areas to account for greater propensity of program-related users to live in urbanized areas. Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 110 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
FIGURE 31: Western El Dorado County Urban Transit Demand
Work, 20.6%
Program, 45.8%
Elderly & Disabled, 15.2%
Other Non-Program, 18.3%
FIGURE 32: Western El Dorado County Rural Transit Demand
Elderly, 6.3% Disabled, 0.7%
Program, 50.7%
Other Non-Program, 42.3%
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 111
This page left intentionally blank.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 112 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Chapter 5
EDCTA Goals and Objectives Analysis
BACKGROUND
An important element in the success of any organization is a clear and concise set of goals and the performance measures and standards needed to attain them. This can be particularly important for a public transit agency, for several reasons:
Transit goals can be inherently contradictory. For instance, the goal of maximizing cost effectiveness can tend to focus services on the largest population centers, while the goal of maximizing the availability of public transit services can tend to disperse services to outlying areas. To best meet its overall mission, a public transit agency must therefore be continually balancing the trade-offs between goals. Adopting policy statements also allows a discussion of community values regarding transit issues that is at a higher level of discussion than is possible when considering case-by-case individual issues.
As a public entity, a public transit organization is expending public funds, and therefore has a responsibility to provide the public with transparent information on how funds are being spent and how well it is doing in meeting its goals. Funding partners also have a responsibility to ensure that funds provided to the transit program are being used appropriately. The transit organization therefore has a responsibility to provide information regarding the effectiveness and efficiency by which public funds are being spent.
An adopted set of goals and performance standards helps to communicate the values of the transit program to other organizations, to the public, and to the organization staff.
To date, EDCTA has not developed a consistent and comprehensive set of policy statements. The EDCTA adopted mission statement is:
“To provide effective public transit, coordinate transit services, reduce vehicle miles traveled on the western slope of El Dorado County and actively support reduction emissions to improve air quality.”
In addition, the single adopted goal of the EDCTA is:
“To provide safe, reliable, courteous, attractive, and comfortable public transit.”
This chapter presents recommended goals, objectives, and standards, specific to the EDCTA service area. The need for these policy statements is also a finding of the FY 2004/06 Triennial Performance Audit of El Dorado County Transit Authority. This chapter first presents a review of existing policy statements, both adopted by EDCTA as well as by other organizations (such as EDCTC) that address transit issues in Western El Dorado County. Recommended policy statements are then presented.
REVIEW OF EXISTING ADOPTED GOALS
Several planning documents, as discussed in Chapter 2 of this document, provide existing adopted policy statements with regards to transit services. The following is a selection of noteworthy goals from various documents.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 113
El Dorado County Regional Transportation Plan 2025
The current Regional Transportation Plan, adopted by EDCTC in 2005, cites the following goals:
Provide and maintain a safe, efficient and convenient countywide roadway system that meets the travel needs of people and goods through and within the region.
Promote effective, convenient, and desirable public transit for residents of and visitors to El Dorado County.
Provide for the safe and efficient movement of goods through and within El Dorado County.
Provide a safe, convenient, and efficient non-motorized transportation system which is part of a balanced overall transportation system.
Promote the use of alternative transportation to reduce the negative impacts of single-occupant vehicle travel.
Secure maximum available funding and pursue new sources of funds for maintenance, expansion, and improvement of transportation facilities and services.
El Dorado County General Plan
To plan for and provide a unified, coordinated and cost-efficient countywide road and highway system that ensures the safe, orderly and efficient movement of people and goods.
To coordinate planning and implementation of roadway improvements with new development to maintain adequate levels of service on County roads.
To promote a safe and efficient transit system that provides service to all residents, including senior citizens, youths, the disabled, and those without access to automobiles that also helps to reduce congestion and improves the environment.
To reduce travel demand on the County’s road system and maximize the operating efficiency of transportation facilities, thereby reducing the quantity of motor vehicle emissions and the amount of investment required in new or expanded facilities.
To provide a safe, continuous and easily accessible non-motorized transportation system that facilitates the use of the viable alternative transportation modes.
El Dorado County Area Agency on Aging Area Plan Update 2007-2008
Provide a comprehensive array of community services designed to improve the quality of life and to maintain seniors and functionally impaired adults in the home and/or community.
Advocate for the expansion of transportation services for seniors.
The Senior Nutrition Program will collaborate with the Cameron Park Community Services District to help plan and design a new community center to be constructed adjacent to the library.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 114 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Advocate for the expansion of public transportation services to the new Cameron Park Community Center.
Explore the possibility of bringing a volunteer-supported transportation system modeled after the SLT and Placerville program.
Volunteer coordinator will expand the volunteer-supported Senior Shuttle to include one additional service area and one additional day of service.
Sacramento Regional Metropolitan Transportation Plan
This plan, adopted by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments in 2006, identifies the following goals pertinent to transit services provided by EDCTA:
Develop a fully-integrated, multi-modal transportation system to serve as a catalyst to enhance the quality of life enjoyed by the current and future residents of the Sacramento Region.
Improve access to goods, jobs, services, housing, and other destinations. Provide mobility for people and goods throughout the region, in a safe, affordable, efficient, and convenient manner.
Develop a transportation system and related strategies that contribute to achieving healthy air in the region.
Provide affordable, convenient, safe, and integrated travel choices.
Enhance the economic vitality of our region by efficiently and effectively connecting people to jobs, goods, and services, and by moving goods within our region and beyond with an integrated multi- modal freight system.
Pursue a transportation system that addresses the needs of all people in all parts of the region and assure that impacts of the transportation projects don’t adversely affect particular communities disproportionately.
Influence land use policies to improve access to jobs, services, and house to everyone in the region by using market forces and the regulatory process.
Develop the transportation system to promote and enhance environmental quality for present and future generations.
Transportation Development Act
The California Transportation Development Act (TDA) sets a minimum “farebox return ratio” for each public transit organization using TDA funds (under specific articles of the TDA). Put simply, the farebox return ratio is the ratio of the operating income (largely fare revenues) divided by the non-capital expenses. For El Dorado County, the TDA requires a minimum farebox return ratio of 10 percent (below which a portion of TDA funds would be withheld). It should be noted that new transit services in rural areas are expressly eligible under TDA law for exemption from the minimum 10 percent farebox recovery ratio during the first two years of service. Also, the TDA only requires this ratio to be maintained for the transit system as a whole, rather than on an individual service or route basis. As TDA does not provide any requirements or guidance beyond this single systemwide ratio, establishment of specific transit services performance measures is very much a matter of local discretion.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 115
RECOMMENDED GOALS, PERFORMANCE MEASURES, AND STANDARDS
The following goals, performance measures, and standards are designed to reflect the adopted policy statements of the region. Goals establish general direction for policies and operation and are value-driven providing long-range perspective. Standards are quantifiable observable measures that reflect achievement of the goals. The performance measures provide the mechanism for judging whether or not the standards have been met.
Five major goals are identified: a service efficiency goal (reflecting efficient use of financial resources), a service effectiveness goal (reflecting effectiveness in serving passengers), a service quality goal, an accessibility goal, and a planning and management goal. Reflecting the very different service environment and expectations, these policy statements are developed independently for the following EDCTA services:
Commuter services Local route services (local fixed-route and route-deviation services in the US 50 Corridor, including the IPC) DAR services Rural services
Contract services (such as the M.O.R.E. service) are not covered by this discussion, as the service standards are addressed in the individual contract agreements. In addition, the SAC-MED service is not considered, as it is a specialized service providing for specific medical needs.
Standards are provided as appropriate, based upon observed performance of similar transit systems in California, as well as the existing performance of EDCTA transit services. Goals, performance measures and standards specific to each type of service are presented in Table 42 along with EDCTA quantitative results for FY 2006/07 where applicable. Areas where EDCTA did not meet the standard in FY 2006/07 are shaded in blue. Data was not available for all performance measures.
Service Efficiency Goal
To maximize the level of services that can be provided within the financial resources associated with the provision of transit services. The standards should not be strictly applied to new routes for the first two years of service, so long as 60 percent of standard is achieved after one full year of service and a favorable trend is maintained.)
Commuter Services
These standards apply to the Sacramento Commuter/Reverse Commuter service (considered as a whole), and would be applied to any future new service west of Folsom.
Farebox Recovery Ratio Standard – The ratio of farebox income to operating costs should meet or exceed 50 percent.
Subsidy Standard – The public operation/administrative subsidy per passenger-trip for service should not exceed $3 (in FY 2007/08), based on both industry standards and existing transit system goals. This standard should be adjusted annually to account for inflation.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 116 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
A A N/ N/ Standard Trip Denial ADA Denials No Pattern of ) A No N/AN/A N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A N/A Yes N/A YesYes N/A N/A Yes N/A N/ N/A N/A N/A Service Standard Minimum Headway ( 60 Minutes N/A Yes 60 min In-Vehicle (Maximum) Travel Time Times Auto Times Auto Travel Time Travel Time Less Than 3 Less Than 3 100% Within 75% of Trips within 45 min, ) A 1% 1% 1% 1% N/A Yes N/AN/AN/A Yes No (1) Yes Yes N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A N/A Yes N/ N/A Yes N/A Yes Trips Missed Maximum ( A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ N/A N/A 95% 90% 90% Routes On-Time Standard Performance Trips On-Time (Minimum % of 90% for Fixed- Service Quality Goal Deviated Fixed- Routes, 80% for A ------No N/A N/A N/ Yes Yes Routes? Standard Residents? Mile of Fixed- Mile of 85% Centers That Can Service Availability Service Within 1/4 Service Within 3/4 Meet Other Goals? Serve Employment A ------10 10 No No N/ g) psgrs/day psgrs/day Shelter >= Shelter >= Seatin A ------No No N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ N/A N/A Passenger Amenity Standard (Shelters & psgrs/day psgrs/day Seating >= 5 Seating >= 5 ) 7.2 5.8 7.1 6.5 1.1 5.0 2.5 3.0 2.0 1.8 2.4 7.1 10.9 10.0 14.5 Goal Service Minimum ( per Vehicle Service Hour Effectiveness Passenger-Trips )(1) N/A N/A $6.71 $3.00 $2.65 $89.59 $30.71 $12.18 $15.21 $10.50 $12.82 $15.00 $35.00 $53.49 $11.73 Maximum ( Trip Standard Per Passenger- Operating Subsidy = Does Not Meet Standard (1) ) N/A N/A 1.9% 1.3% 5.0% 7.6% 4.0% Service Efficiency Goal 17.9% 12.4% 11.5% 10.6% 50.0% 10.0% 10.7% Standard Minimum ( Return Ratio Operating Farebox Performance Measure r Iron Point Connecto Placerville East/ West Pollock Pines Diamond Springs / FLC Placerville Express South County Cameron Park/ FLC Fiscal Year 2006-07 Results Standard Standard Total Local Routes Standard Grizzly Flat Standard Sacramento Commuter/Reverse Commute 63.2% Dial-A-Ride TABLE 42: Western El Dorado County Goals and Standards for Transit Service Commuter Services Local Route Services Rural Services Demand Response Services Service Note 1: While the Placerville Express route does not attain this standard for service across Placerville, in combination with Placerville East /West routes this standard is attained for the local route system as a whole.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 117
Local Route Services
These standards apply to the local routes (both deviated and fixed) that serve the US 50 Corridor, including the IPC.
Farebox Recovery Ratio Standard – The ratio of farebox income to operating costs should meet or exceed 10 percent.
Subsidy Standard – The public operation/administrative subsidy per passenger-trip for service should not exceed $15 in FY 2007/08, based on industry standards and recent experience. This standard should be adjusted annually to account for inflation.
In FY 2006/07 the Placerville Express and IPC routes did not meet these standards. It should be noted that in combination with the Placerville East/West routes the farebox and subsidy standards are attained for the Placerville local route system as a whole.
Rural Services
These standards apply to the existing South County and Grizzly Flat services, as well as any future services outside of the US 50 Corridor in El Dorado County. It is recognized that rural services are inherently less effective than services in more populated areas.
Farebox Recovery Ratio Standard – The ratio of farebox income to operating costs should meet or exceed 5 percent.
Subsidy Standard – The public operation/administrative subsidy per passenger-trip for shuttle service should not exceed $35 in FY 2007/08. This is a realistic standard, based on the inherent financial challenges of providing rural service. This standard should be adjusted annually to account for inflation.
The South County route did not meet these standards in FY 2006/07.
Service Effectiveness Goal
To maximize the ridership potential of EDCTA service. (The standards should not be strictly applied to new routes for the first two years of service so long as 60 percent of standard is achieved after one year and a favorable trend is maintained.)
All Services
Improvement in Effectiveness Standard – Increase ridership productivity by at least 3 percent annually for each service component.
Commuter Services
Service Effectiveness Standard – Serve a minimum of 10 passenger-trips per vehicle service hour.
Local Route Services
Service Effectiveness Standard – Serve a minimum of 5 passenger-trips per vehicle service hour. The IPC did not meet this standard in FY 2006/07.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 118 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Rural Services
Service Effectiveness Standard – Serve a minimum of 2.5 passenger-trips per vehicle service hour. The South County route did not meet this standard in FY 2006/07.
Demand Response Services
Service Effectiveness Standard – Serve a minimum of 2 passenger-trips per vehicle service hour.
Service Quality Goal
To provide safe, reliable, and convenient transit services.
All Services
Passenger Load Standard – For passenger safety and comfort, vehicles should be sized and the transit service operated to limit typical peak loads to the seating capacity. Standing loads shall be limited to a maximum of 20 percent of daily runs.
Regional Connectivity Standard – Local service should be provided within one block of all regional transit transfer locations and intercity bus/rail stops. EDCTA marketing materials shall provide information sources regarding connecting services. Passenger facilities should be improved to enhance regional public transportation connections. EDCTA services meet this standard.
Accident Standard – Maintain a minimum of 50,000 miles between preventable collision accidents and 25,000 miles between all types of accidents. EDCTA does not record the mileage between accidents but a review of accident summaries over the last three years indicated that EDCTA generally meets this standard.
Maintenance Standard – Maintain a minimum of 10,000 miles between roadcalls. The EDCTA fleet does not always meet this standard.
Preventive Maintenance Standard – 100 percent of preventative maintenance actions should be completed within 500 miles of schedule. EDCTA generally meets this standard.
Vehicle Standard – Vehicles should be replaced at the end of their useful lives and according to FTA guidelines. The average fleet age should be no more than six years. EDCTA has several vehicles which are due for replacement. The average age of the fleet is 4.76 years.
Vehicle Cleanliness Standard – The outside of all vehicles in regular use shall be washed at least weekly, except when water use restrictions are in effect. Inside, spot cleaning and trash removal shall be conducted at least daily.
Passenger Complaint Standard – Passenger complaints shall be less than 1 per 5,000 passenger-trips (fixed-route) and less than 1 per 3,000 passenger-trips (demand-response). Management response should be provided to all complaints within one working day. EDCTA typically responds to complaints within one business day.
Training Standard – All services shall be provided by trained, courteous, respectful employees, who are sensitive to the needs of passengers.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 119
Commuter Services
These standards can be applied specifically to the Sacramento and Reverse Commuter routes as shown in Table 42.
Passenger Amenity Standard – Shelter should be provided at all transit stops serving 10 or more passengers per day within Western El Dorado County. Seating should be provided at all transit stops serving 5 or more passengers per day within Western El Dorado County. Under this standard, the Ponderosa, Rodeo, and El Dorado County Fairgrounds Park-and-Rides should have shelters.
Service Availability Standard – Provide transit service to employment centers that can support commuter service consistent with the service efficiency and effectiveness goals.
On-Time Performance Standard – 90 percent of all trips should be operated “on-time,” defined as not early, and no more than 5 minutes late.
Missed Trips Standard – The proportion of runs not operated or more than 15 minutes late should be no more than 1 percent.
Travel Time Standard – Transit travel should take no longer than 3 times the equivalent automobile trip during peak commute times.
Local Route Services
Passenger Amenity Standard – Shelter should be provided at all transit stops serving 10 or more passengers per day within Western El Dorado County. Seating should be provided at all transit stops serving 5 or more passengers per day within Western El Dorado County. If this standard were applied to EDCTA, an additional 7 shelters and 5 benches would be required.
Service Availability Standard – Provide transit service to residential areas, major medical, shopping, government, employment centers, and activity centers that can support route service. The local route system shall be designed such that 85 percent of the population of urbanized areas is within one- fourth mile of a fixed-route or within the service area of a deviated fixed-route or general public DAR service.
On-Time Performance Standard – 90 percent of all fixed-route trips and 80 percent of all deviated fixed-route trips should be operated “on-time,” defined as not early, and no more than five minutes late. Performance shall be measured at the route terminus, though evaluation of on-time performance at intermediate time points is encouraged if an on-time issue is identified.
Missed Trips Standard – The proportion of runs not operated or more than 15 minutes late should be no more than 1 percent.
Travel Time Standard – Transit travel should take no longer than 3 times the equivalent automobile trip during peak commute times.
Service Frequency Standard – Provide scheduled service with a maximum headway of 60 minutes in both directions along each route; strive to provide 30-minute headways where cost-effective in order to improve service quality.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 120 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Bus Stop Spacing Standard – Buses should serve approximately 4 to 6 bus stops per mile in developed areas.
Rural Services
On-Time Performance Standard – 90 percent of all trips should be operated “on-time,” defined as not early, and no more than 10 minutes late.
Missed Trips Standard – The proportion of runs not operated or more than 15 minutes late should be no more than 1 percent.
Demand Response Services
Service Availability Standard – Provide demand response service to all areas within three-fourth’s mile of fixed-route service, per the requirements of the ADA.
On-Time Performance Standard – 95 percent of all scheduled pick-ups should be provided “on-time,” defined as no more than 10 minutes late.
Missed Trips Standard – The proportion of runs not operated or more than 30 minutes late should be no more than 1 percent.
In-Vehicle Travel Time Standard – 75 percent of passengers should reach their destinations within 45 minutes and 100 percent within 60 minutes.
Trip Denial Standard – No pattern of trip denials to ADA eligible passengers shall exist due to vehicle unavailability. Reschedule denied trips where possible.
Accessibility Goal
To provide a transit system that is accessible to the greatest number of persons while maintaining the productivity of the system.
Service Area Standard – Maximize the area provided with transit service while maintaining minimum farebox return standards.
Vehicle Accessibility Standard – Maintain a fully wheelchair-accessible transit fleet.
ADA Goal – Fully meet the requirements of the ADA.
Planning and Management Goal
To evaluate strategies which help management maximize productivity while meeting the transit needs of the community and develop a transit program that supports comprehensive planning goals.
Planning Standard – Short Range Transit Plans shall be updated at a minimum of every four years.
Service Monitoring Standard – Monitoring reports on the effectiveness and efficiency of transit service will be collected and reviewed monthly.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 121
Transportation Development Act Standard – The requirements of the Transportation Development Act shall be fully met, particularly with regard to addressing those unmet transit needs of the community that are “reasonable to meet.”
Land Use Planning Standard – Development proposals shall be reviewed with the El Dorado County Development Services Department and City of Placerville Community Development Department to assess the effects of development on transit service, and to encourage land development that is compatible with transit service. In addition, roadway modification plans along existing or planned transit service routes shall be reviewed by transit staff.
Coordination Standard – On at least a quarterly basis, potential coordination opportunities with all other public transportation providers in the service area shall be reviewed to ensure convenient connections between services and to avoid unnecessary duplication of service.
Marketing Standard – Marketing efforts shall be conducted to ensure that all service area residents are aware of EDCTA services. Targeted marketing efforts shall be conducted for high-potential groups, including elderly, disabled, and low-income residents. A minimum of 2 percent (and preferably 3 percent) of total annual operating/administrative budget should be expended on marketing efforts. Up-to-date schedules and route maps should be conveniently available to the public at all times.
Administrative Cost Standard – Administrative costs should be 15 percent or less of total operating costs.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 122 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Chapter 6 Service Alternatives
The basis for any transit plan is the development of an effective and appropriate service strategy. The types of service provided, their schedules and routes, and the quality of service can effectively determine the success or failure of a transit organization. Based on the service plan, capital requirements, and funding requirements, the appropriate institutional and management strategies can be determined.
DEVIATED FIXED-ROUTE SERVICE ALTERNATIVES
El Dorado Hills Fixed-Route Circulator
El Dorado Hills is an important activity center not currently well served by EDCTA. Current services consist only of Commuter and IPC services to the El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride, and DAR services. The evaluation of potential transit demand presented in Chapter 4 as well as interviews and information from social service program managers indicate a significant transit demand, particularly among teens, seniors, and the disabled. In addition, the major employment centers in the southern portion of El Dorado Hills generate a potential for transit ridership. Significant development over the last 3-5 years in particular have increased the potential for public transit usage.
Many of the commercial, recreational, and public land uses and the higher density housing areas in El Dorado Hills are located generally along the El Dorado Hills/Latrobe Road corridor, making them relatively easy to serve. However, the majority of single family homes are located outside of a convenient walking distance (typically considered to be a quarter mile for local bus service) from this corridor, and located along winding subdivision streets which are difficult to serve with a bus route. One option initially considered to serve residential areas was a “route deviation” service in which scheduled stops would be served along the major roadways and time would be available in the schedule to serve individual ride requests to locations in residential neighborhoods. However, the time needed to serve the major corridor would not provide adequate time to also serve deviation requests while still providing at least hourly service with a single vehicle. As operating more than a single vehicle would not be cost- effective (at least in the short term), a route deviation service was not considered to be feasible. A strategy of providing a fixed-route along with continued DAR service was therefore developed.
Figure 33 presents a potential route for this fixed-route. As shown, it would originate at the El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride and consist of two segments with a series of designated “on demand” stops:
The North Route would travel north along El Dorado Hills Boulevard, directly serving the Raley’s Center. The route would also divert off of El Dorado Hills Boulevard on Harvard Way and St. Andrews Way to directly serve schools, teen center, and senior center. The route would turn left on Francisco Drive, right onto Village Center Drive, and right onto Salmon Falls Road before returning along El Dorado Hills Boulevard. “On demand” stops would be designated at apartment complexes along this route as well as at the Lake Forest School and Marina Village School. Designating stops directly along El Dorado Hills Boulevard will require a site-by-site evaluation of available pavement width, as it would not be acceptable for transit vehicles to block travel lanes. This route segment would require roughly 35 minutes to complete.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 123
FIGURE 33 Potential El Dorado Hills Deviated Fixed-Route
MARINA LAKE VILLAGE FOREST SCHOOL SCHOOL
VILLAGE CENTER
GREEN VALLEY RD.
VILLAGE JACKSON CENTER SCHOOL
EL DORADO HILLS BLVD.
SCALE 0 .5 1 LEGEND ST. ANDREWS DR. HIGHWAY 50 CSD TEEN ROLLING CENTER HILLS IN MILES ROADS SCHOOL LAKES RECREATION EDH ROUTE FACILITIES ¾ MILE DEVIATION HARVARD WAY SERVICE AREA (APPROX.) SILVA
VALLEY
PKY.
OAK MEADOW SCHOOL
RALEY’S CENTER
PARK SENIOR CENTER TOWN 50 CENTER POSTVINE ST.
LATROBE
WHITE ROCK RD. VALLEY VIEW PKY.
PARK & RIDE 50
SUN CAST LN.
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 124 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
The South Route would consist of a smaller loop serving the Town Center and Town Center East areas, the multifamily area along Valley View Parkway, and the Sunset Mobile Home Park. This route segment would require roughly 7 minutes to complete.
The El Dorado Hills Business Park would be served by a series of signed On Demand stops, located along Golden Foothill Parkway, Windplay Drive, Suncast Lane, Mathews Parkway, and Investment Boulevard. Depending on requests, this service would require 10 minutes to complete.
The On Demand stops would be signed and served as needed to accommodate passengers making requests for service. They would be served at a specific time past the hour, but only upon request. Requests can be made in the following ways:
By phone on the day of service, a minimum of 30 minutes prior to the scheduled time. On the bus, by directly asking the driver for service. As a “standing request,” once a pattern of regular use is established.
These On Demand stops are intended to generate the need for service only when necessary to serve passengers, thereby reducing in-vehicle travel time and costs associated with service to a stop when no passengers desire service. It can be expected that the service requests will identify specific times (such as around shift changes at employment centers) when service will regularly be requested. Once a pattern is established, some runs may be converted to a regular schedule.
This service would be timed to provide direct transfers to the IPC at the El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride. The IPC currently serves this stop at 53 minutes past the hour in the eastbound direction and 10 minutes past the hour in the westbound direction. A reasonable hourly schedule would be as follows:
North Route departs at 10 after, returning at 45 after. East Route departs at 53 after, returning at the top of the hour. From the top of the hour to 10 after the bus is available to service On Demand stops or can layover.
This schedule provides convenient connections between the North Route and IPC services to and from Placerville, as well as convenient connections between the East Route and Business Park stops and IPC services to and from Folsom. As shown in Table 43, this service would incur an operating cost of approximately $316,800 per year.
Potential ridership on this service can be evaluated in two elements – resident trips and employment trips. Resident trip demand is estimated to equal 7,600 one-way trips per year, based on the observed ridership in Cameron Park factored by the relative population and population characteristics, the better hourly level of service that would be provided in El Dorado Hills, and the social service programs that would be served in El Dorado Hills. Employment trips are estimated to equal 4,500 one-way passenger-trips per year based on the employment levels in El Dorado Hills, typical transit mode split figures observed in similar suburban employment centers, and the commute patterns of El Dorado Hills Industrial Park employees. In particular, some of the major employers such as DST report that they typically operate 12- hour shifts (6:00 AM to 6:00 PM) that are difficult to serve using traditional public transit. In total, ridership on this service is estimated to equal 12,100 passenger-trips per year. Subtracting the associated $18,200 in passenger fare revenues, net subsidy requirements are estimated to equal $298,600.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 125
TABLE 43: El Dorado County Transit Authority Service Alternatives FY 2008/09 Ridership and Cost Analysis Operating Characteristics Total Annual Ridership Impact Annual Vehicles Veh. Serv. Veh. Serv. Operating (One-Way Trips) Farebox Subsidy 1 3 Alternative Required Miles Hours Cost Daily Annual Revenue Required
Status Quo Local Route Service 7 283,177 17,111 $1,392,200 – 143,700 $192,200 $1,200,000 Rural Routes 1 8,398 332 $29,800 800 $1,700 $28,100 Dial-A-Ride Service 8 319,318 14,042 $1,225,000 – 34,100 $67,400 $1,157,600 Sacramento Commuter Service 10 267,508 8,730 $827,000 – 129,800 $578,500 $248,500 Iron Point Connector 1 96,712 3,427 $316,800 6,500 $14,000 $302,800 Special Services 3 11,778 1,149 $86,600 – 14,100 $4,500 $82,100 Sac Med 1 14,749 482 $45,600 800 $3,400 $42,200 Fixed Costs – – – $841,000 – – – – Subtotal (Excludes Contracted Services) 31 1,001,640 45,273 $4,764,000 – 329800 $858,300 $3,905,700
Local Route Alternatives El Dorado Hills Fixed Route Circulator 1 75,657 3,732 $316,800 47 13,600 $18,200 $298,600
Express / Community Routes Additional US 50 (Iron Point Connector) Runs 1 82,896 2,937 $271,500 99 24,800 $53,500 – Change in Cameron Park Route 0 12,166 281 $30,000 – – – – El Dorado Hills Fixed Route 1 75,657 3,732 $316,800 47 13,600 $18,200 – Total 2 170,719 6,950 $618,300 146 38,400 $71,700 $546,600 Combined Pville Express/ Pollock Pines Route 0 0 0 $0 12 2,900 $3,900 -$3,900 Add Earlier Pollock Pines Run – 8,000 500 $40,400 7 1,800 $3,800 $36,600
Extend Local Route Service 1 Hour in Evening 0 25,380 1,481 $121,400 29 7,320 $9,800 $111,600
Sunday Service on Local Routes 1 14,530 1,046 $82,500 65 3,300 $4,400 $78,100 Sunday Taxi Voucher Program Existing Service – 13,917 612 $65,600 24 1,210 $2,600 $63,000 Taxi Voucher Program $18,800 1,210 $2,600 $16,200 Difference -$46,800 0 $0 -$46,800 Modify Placerville Route to Serve Eskaton 0 2,153 0 $2,000 16 4,600 $3,080 -$1,080 Modify Placerville Route to Serve Mallard Lane Development 0 861 0 $800 3 900 $1,200 -$400 Iron Point Connector Alternatives Shift Schedule Mid-Day to Better Serve Commuters 0 -13,816 -490 -$45,300 3 800 $1,700 -$47,000 Add a 6:40 AM Run 1 14,500 625 $54,800 4 1,000 $2,200 $52,600 Add a 4:40 PM Run 1 14,500 625 $54,800 5 1,300 $2,800 $52,000 Serve Foothill Oaks Casino 0 3,500 0 $3,300 80 20,000 $43,200 -$39,900
Sacramento Commuter Alternatives Terminate at Sunrise -3 -189,045 -6,739 -$621,800 -275 -68,800 -$306,600 -$315,200 Terminate in Folsom -213,270 -7,372 -$686,400 -291 -72,800 -$324,500 -$361,900 Add AM Route Arriving Around 7:50 AM 0 11,631 380 $36,000 24 6,000 $26,700 $9,300 Add PM Route Departing Around 3:50 PM 1 11,631 380 $36,000 18 4,500 $20,100 $15,900 Eliminate Route 10 PM Run -1 -11,631 -380 -$36,000 -13 -3,300 -$14,700 -$21,300
Provide Commuter Service from Folsom to El Dorado Hills 1 49,000 2,125 $186,000 48 11,900 $25,700 $160,300
Reinstate Commuter Service to Rancho Cordova 2 88,921 1,656 $193,100 15 3,800 $8,700 $184,400 Rural Services Eliminate South County Service – -3,431 -133 -$12,000 -3 -147 -$180 -$11,820 Georgetown -- Cool -- Auburn Service – 5,406 204 $14,000 27 1,400 $1,700 $12,300 Provide Sac-Med Service One Additional Day per Week 0 7,375 241 $22,800 7 360 $1,500 $21,300 Expand Dial A Ride 2 68,221 3,000 $261,700 29 7,300 $14,400 $247,300
Note 1: Excluding spares, which can only be calculated for the system as a whole. The Status Quo option "distributes" the existing fleet based on peak needs (as detailed in Figure 19) Note 2: Assumes 250 weekdays and 51 Saturdays of service. Note 3: Based on EDCTA FY 2006-07 cost model presented in Table 28 of Tech Memo 1, factored up 3 percent annually.
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 126 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Express/Community Route Alternative
At present, the EDCTA local route network is configured as a “pulse point” transit network, wherein all local buses (other than the Pollock Pines Route) serve a single transfer point (Missouri Flat Transfer Center), scheduled as much as possible to allow direct transfers between buses at this point. This strategy is best for a relatively compact urbanized area with a strong activity zone near the center of the overall service area.
An alternative service plan that better fits the urban form of the US 50 corridor is a combination of an Express Route along US 50 and a series of Community Shuttle routes. As shown in Figure 34, the basis for this plan would be an Express Route that serves the US 50 corridor between Placerville Station and the Iron Point Light Rail Station, incorporating both the existing Placerville Express as well as the IPC. Two buses would be operated to provide hourly service.
The Community Shuttle routes would be as follows:
Two buses would continue to operate the existing Placerville Routes on an hourly headway.
One bus would operate the existing Diamond Springs and Folsom Lake College Routes on an hourly headway (no longer interlining with the Cameron Park Route). Passengers would transfer to the Express Route at Missouri Flat Transfer Center (MFTC).
The Cameron Park Route would serve the existing route through Cameron Park and Shingle Springs, but would no longer travel east of Sunset Lane on Mother Lode Drive. Instead, the one bus would be able to provide hourly service, rather than the current service of every two hours. Passengers would transfer to the Express Route at the Ponderosa Park-and-Ride.
One bus would be used to operate the hourly El Dorado Hills Route, as discussed above, transferring passengers to the Express Route at the El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride.
The Express Route could also serve the other Park-and-Ride lots at specific times during commute periods, or on request at other times. Overall, this option would require two more buses than currently operated: one to provide hourly service on the Express Route and one to operate the El Dorado Hills Route.
Advantages of this strategy would be as follows:
This would greatly improve access from El Dorado Hills to Cameron Park and Placerville, as well as from Cameron Park to El Dorado Hills, providing service every hour rather than every two hours.
Service frequency in Cameron Park would be increased from every two hours to every hour.
Hourly service connections would be provided to Light Rail, increasing the ability of commuters to use Light Rail and the Express Route to access Rancho Cordova and downtown Sacramento, either in the commute periods or mid-day.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 127
CNL SCHOOL SCHNELL 2
MHP DIAMOND 1
49 IN MILES OLRLN. FOWLER SCALE MISSOURI FLAT TRANSFER CENTER 0 PLACERVILLE 193 PARK AND RIDE SPRINGS ROUTE DIAMOND SPRINGS TRANSFER CENTER/
EXISTING DIAMOND
PLACERVILLE STATION
OIIRD. FORINI RE VALLEY GREEN 50 49 ROUTE EXISTING PLACERVILLE 49 ROUTE LAKE COLLEGE EXISTING FOLSOM PONDEROSA PARK AND RIDE HOURLY EXPRESS RESCUE PLACERVILLE EXPRESS) ROUTE (COMBINED IPC & PONDEROSA HIGH SCHOOL SHINGLE SPRINGS FIGURE 34 ROUTE CAMERON PARK REVISED HOURLY
CRESCENT
CAMERON PARK
. D
R CAMBRIDGE D.R
N RODEO RD.
O
R PARK AND RIDE
R
A
M
M I C Community/Express Route Alternative PARK AND RIDE CAMBRIDGE RD. LEGEND 50 PARK AND RIDE EL DORADO HILLS ROUTE NEW HOURLY EL DORADO HILLS HIGHWAY 50 ROADS LAKES URBAN AREA NEW HOURLY EL DORADO HILLSREVISED ROUTE HOURLY CAMERON PARK ROUTE HOURLY EXPRESS ROUTE (COMBINED IPCEXISTING & FOLSOM PLACERVILLE LAKE EXPRESS) CENTER ROUTE EXISTING PLACERVILLE ROUTE EXISTING DIAMOND SPRINGS ROUTE ON DEMAND SERVICE
VILLAGE CENTER FRANCISCO
CONSULTANTS, INC. TRANSPORTATION EXPRESSCOMMUNITY POINT TO IRON STATION
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 128 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Disadvantages would consist of the following:
Additional operating subsidy would be required.
Existing Cameron Park passengers traveling to and from Placerville would be required to transfer. A review of existing ridership data indicates that roughly 75 percent of existing riders on the Cameron Park route travel to or from Placerville. The routes could be scheduled to provide direct transfers between the Cameron Park Route and the Express Route in both directions.
Mother Lode Drive between Sunset Lane and El Dorado Road would no longer be served by an EDCTA route. However, a review of a week of ridership data indicates that less than one passenger per day is currently served by the stops along this route segment.
Based on an elasticity analysis of existing ridership and the impacts of these various service quality factors, the net impact of this alternative on systemwide annual ridership (excluding the El Dorado Hills Route discussed above) is estimated as follows:
Increased Service Frequency on Cameron Park Route 8,200 Need to Transfer between Cameron Park and Placerville - 500 Elimination of Service to Existing Stops on Mother Lode Drive - 100 Increased Service Frequency on IPC (US 50) 8,300 Total Impact 15,900
The additional services, including the net increase in mileage associated with the change in the Cameron Park Route, would increase overall operating costs by approximately $618,300 per year. Farebox revenues would be increased by $52,500, yielding a net increase in required subsidy of $565,800.
Combine Placerville Express and Pollock Pines Routes
At present, the Placerville Express and Pollock Pines Routes both consist of a single vehicle operating over an hourly route. The two routes meet at Placerville Station to transfer passengers at the top of the hour. An option would be to combine these routes into a single route between Pollock Pines and the Missouri Flat Transfer Center using two buses over a two-hour route to maintain the hourly headways. This would allow passengers traveling between the two routes (which comprise roughly 75 percent of Pollock Pines Route passengers) to simply stay on the bus to complete their trip. In addition to avoiding the minor inconvenience of moving from one bus to the other, this avoids the uncertainty associated with making the connection, which is a bigger deterrent to potential riders. The only disadvantage of this option would be that delays on one portion of the route segment could cause delays on the other.
This option would incur essentially no cost to implement. The routes could still be designated as two separate routes (with buses simply changing headsigns at Placerville Station), or designated as a single route. In either case, route deviations would still be provided east of the Placerville complementary DAR service area. Research indicates that passengers perceive the elimination of a transfer equivalent to a reduction in travel time of 10 minutes. Applying an elasticity analysis to the existing ridership levels, this alternative would increase ridership by approximately 2,900 passenger-trips per year.
Add Earlier Run on Pollock Pines Route
The current Pollock Pines Route schedule provides a first run leaving Pollock Pines at 7:00 AM and arriving at the Missouri Flat Transfer Center at 7:40 AM. This schedule allows for residents living along the Pollock Pines Route to get to destinations in Placerville prior to 8:00 AM, but not to other destinations
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 129
on the local route network. This first run of the day, moreover, is the most popular run on this route, carrying roughly 20 passengers per day westbound. Given this pattern, one option would be to operate an earlier run beginning in Pollock Pines at 6:00 AM. This service would not require an additional vehicle, but would incur an operating cost of $40,400 per year. Based on the existing ridership pattern and the observed variation in ridership by time of day on similar systems, a reasonable estimate of ridership potential on this run is 7 passengers per day, or 1,800 per year. These riders would generate roughly $3,800 in fare revenues, resulting in an annual subsidy requirement of $36,600 per year.
Designate More Stops Along Pollock Pines Route
At present only six bus stops are designated with signs on the Pollock Pines Route outside of the immediate Placerville area: three in Pollock Pines, two in Camino, and one in Camino Heights. The designated stops serve 80 percent of the route’s ridership, while the remaining 20 percent of boardings occur at on-request stops. Topography, limited right-of-way, and other constraints have been challenges in designating additional stops.
In general, designating stops provides several benefits: (1) it shows passengers an acceptable location to wait for the bus; (2) it indicates to drivers where a passenger can be served without an undue safety hazard; and (3) it provides an ongoing physical “presence” in an area that increases public awareness of the service and thus yields a substantial marketing benefit.
Other than the stops already designated, only two on-request stops get any significant (defined as 3 or more total passenger boardings or alightings per day) level of activity: Pony Express/Mace (3 total passengers per day) and Pony Express/Alder Road (5.4 passengers per day). Under this alternative, additional stops would be designated with at least bus stop signs, focusing on these higher passenger activity locations.
It should be noted that it is often appropriate to designate stops even where all of the criteria of a perfect bus stop cannot be provided. For instance, it is common in rural areas to use an existing paved intersecting driveway or roadway shoulder to deploy a wheelchair lift, rather than requiring stops only be located where a 5’ X 8’ wheelchair pad can be provided. It is important, however, in the case of the Pollock Pines route that (1) some means of loading and unloading wheelchair users be available; (2) the bus be able to stop without impeding through travel lanes along Carson Road or Pony Express Trail; and (3) a safe standing area be provided for waiting passengers.
Provide Additional Evening Service on Local Routes
At present, the earliest “last departure” time on the local routes is as follows:
Placerville (Eastbound) – 5:00 PM (Missouri Flat Transit Center) Placerville (Westbound) – 5:00 PM (Woodman Circle) Placerville Express (Eastbound) – 4:35 PM (Missouri Flat Transit Center) Placerville Express (Westbound) – 5:05 PM (Placerville Transit Center) Cameron Park – 5:00 PM (Missouri Flat Transit Center) Diamond Springs – 5:00 PM (Missouri Flat Transit Center) Pollock Pines – 5:00 PM (Placerville Station) Folsom Lake College – 5:35 PM (Missouri Flat Transit Center)
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 130 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
This schedule allows passengers with a departure time of 5:00 PM (such as an employee getting off work at 5:00 PM) to make it home only if their trip does not require a transfer. If a transfer between routes is required (such as a Diamond Springs resident working in Placerville), a 5:00 PM departure is not currently served. Similar transit programs in Northern California typically provide service for roughly one additional hour providing last departures until roughly 6:00 PM, with last arrivals until roughly 7:00 PM.
Under this alternative, one additional run on weekdays would be operated on the Placerville Routes, the Diamond Springs Route, the Pollock Pines Route, and the Cameron Park Route. In addition, one additional hour of DAR service would be added for complementary paratransit service in the Placerville area.
One advantage of extending the service day, or increasing the number of days that the service is operated, is that additional vehicles are not required. Thus, there are no direct capital costs associated with this improvement (though the additional annual mileage could potentially shorten the economically useful life of the transit buses). However, there are still annual operating costs to consider. As presented in Table 43 above, the estimated net annual increase in operating cost to extend local deviated fixed-route service by one hour would amount to $121,400. The consultants reviewed current EDCTA ridership data by hour of day to determine late afternoon trip patterns and to develop anticipated annual evening ridership. In addition, the productivity of evening service on similar transit systems already providing such service was reviewed. Based on this analysis, approximately 7,320 additional annual one-way passenger-trips and $9,800 in farebox revenues are anticipated under this option. Thus, the annual net increase in subsidy required would total $111,600 for the local deviated fixed-route service.
The greatest advantage of this option is that travelers whose work or school schedules end after the current daily span of service would be able to use local transit services. In addition, this option would not require additional vehicles. The disadvantage is that additional annual operating funding would be required.
Sunday Service on Local Routes
EDCTA currently operates deviated fixed-route service Monday through Friday from roughly 6:30 AM to 6:00 PM, and on Saturdays from roughly 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 PM. No Sunday service is currently provided. A reasonable alternative would be to provide Sunday local deviated fixed-route service similar to the existing Saturday service. Under this alternative, four buses would provide service on the Placerville Local, Diamond Springs, Pollock Pines, and Cameron Park Routes from roughly 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. In addition, a DAR van would provide complementary paratransit service in the Placerville area.
As presented in Table 43 above, this option would require an additional $82,500 in annual operating funds. Due to lower travel demand, transit ridership on Sunday services is typically observed in similar systems to be half of Saturday ridership. Using this proportion as a basis for estimating Sunday ridership, approximately 3,300 annual one-way passenger-trips would be provided, or 65 per day on the local deviated fixed-route service. This ridership level would generate approximately $4,400 in additional annual passenger fares. A total of $78,100 in annual operating subsidy would be required under this option.
The greatest advantages of this option are that the fleet would not need to be expanded and the service would increase riders’ access to jobs, shopping, and recreational opportunities. The greatest disadvantage is the increase in annual operating cost.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 131
Sunday Taxicab Subsidy Program
At present, EDCTA services on Sundays are limited to the General Public DAR program. Two vehicles are currently used for Sunday DAR, averaging approximately 12 vehicle-hours of service and serving approximately 23 passenger-trips per day. One option to expand mobility on Sundays would be to provide a taxi subsidy program. Under such a program, DAR passengers would be served by a local taxi services, charged the existing DAR fare, and required to sign a voucher documenting the trip. The taxi company then submits the voucher to EDCTA which in turn redeems the voucher at full value. This ensures that the providers receive full fare for their services.
There are numerous examples of taxicab voucher programs around California. Several – particularly in the Bay Area – are “guaranteed ride home” services only. Most are limited to disabled and/or elderly residents only, including services in Susanville, Santa Fe Springs, Norwalk, Clovis, and Redondo Beach. The specific financial arrangement varies, with some services providing service at a fixed price per voucher, while in others the user pays a percentage of metered fare upon presentation of an ID card. In all cases, it is very important to establish rigorous controls and monitoring procedures if abuse of the program is to be avoided.
A reasonable option would be to replace the existing Sunday DAR program with a subsidized taxi program. Under this option, passengers would still make advanced reservations for service with EDCTA dispatchers. Rather than operating Sunday service, however, the Sunday passenger schedule would be provided to the contracted taxi operator, which would then serve the scheduled requests. In addition to paying the DAR fare to the taxi operator, the passenger would also sign a voucher filled in by the taxi driver providing the details on the trip (including the passenger’s name). The taxi operator(s) would then provide a monthly invoice to EDCTA for reimbursement of the difference between the collected fare and a contracted amount per trip (which could vary by mileage). To be eligible for reimbursement, the passenger name would have to appear on the passenger manifest provided by EDCTA.
As shown in Table 43, the current EDCTA Sunday DAR service is estimated to incur an operating cost of $65,600 (including eight hours per day of dispatcher time). Subtracting an estimated $2,600 in annual fares, this service required $63,000 per year in operating subsidy. The subsidy under a taxi subsidy program can be estimated based on the typical trip length and the existing taxi fare structure. A review of existing DAR information indicates that the average passenger trip length is approximately 6 miles. At the existing typical taxi fare of $8 for the first 3.2 miles plus $2.50 for each additional mile, a 6 mile passenger trip would incur a taxi fare of $15.50. Assuming that ridership under a taxi program would not change from the current DAR ridership, a total of $18,800 in taxi fares would be required. Subtracting the $2,600 in annual fares, the same ridership currently served by DAR could be served with $16,200 in annual subsidy – a reduction of $46,800 per year.
A successful taxi subsidy program would require more administrative time than the current DAR operating hours provide. While it is the responsibility of the taxi company to provide a high quality service, it is the role of the administrator to provide information, monitor use, oversee safety, ensure good use of public funds, and prepare reports. Below are specific administrative elements of the taxi voucher program. EDCTA would be required to conduct the following:
Prepare and administer a Request For Proposals for Service, and select one or more service provider(s). Prepare weekly passenger manifests. Review and approve monthly invoice requests, and check ride eligibility. Ensure that service providers maintain the required insurance, vehicle inspection records, and driver records.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 132 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Monitor service providers. Prepare reports for the EDCTA Board as well as for FTA. Oversee a driver training program. Implement the marketing program. Respond to passenger complaints.
In order to participate in a subsidy program, a taxi operator would need to meet numerous requirements, including record keeping necessary to comply with FTA requirements. In addition, the operator would need to enter into an agreement with EDCTA guaranteeing a reasonable response time, a limited number of missed trips, and other service standards. The organization’s vehicles would need to be clean, reliable, and safe. In addition, some drivers would need to undergo passenger assistance training to ensure that passengers with disabilities were handled in a proper and courteous manner. All persons working in a public transit “safety sensitive” position funded wholly or partially through the Federal Transit Administration are required to comply with FTA’s drug and alcohol testing program, including random testing for drug and alcohol use. This would include both the drivers providing taxi voucher trips, as well as the dispatchers and mechanics maintaining the vehicles. Any contract between the EDCTA and a taxi operator would need to include adherence requirements to ensure compliance with drug and alcohol testing.
The crucial element in a successful taxi subsidy program is the participation of a competent and professional taxi operator willing to undertake the steps listed above to comply with the additional regulations, and to work in a cooperative spirit with the transit agency to “make the program work.” While there are many examples of successful taxi subsidy programs, there are also many examples of such programs that have been terminated.
The advantages of this alternative are the potential for substantial cost savings and subsidy is expended only when service is being provided. These cost savings could potentially be used to expand the hours or capacity of the service to better serve Sunday ridership. It also provides a great deal of flexibility, as the program can be adjusted over time to reflect changes in demand and funding levels. However, the program will require administrative time to set up the program (develop agreements with service providers, market the program, work with social service agencies, etc.) and will also need to be closely monitored to determine its efficiency and value in meeting unmet demand.
Modifications to Placerville Routes to Serve New Developments
A review of current plans for new development indicates that many of these developments are located along existing transit routes (such as the project planned along Broadway in Placerville) or would be served by other potential alternatives (such as the projects along Green Valley Road in El Dorado Hills). Minor route changes or new stops to address the transit needs of these developments can be addressed through the development review process. However, there are two developments in the Placerville area that merit evaluation in this planning study:
A new subdivision entitled The Ridge at Orchard Hill is currently under development west of Mallard Lane and north of Green Valley Road. This project will include homes specifically for Seniors and is also adjacent to an existing subdivision on the east side of Mallard Lane. While there is an existing request only stop at the Phoenix Center to the south, this nearest stop is roughly a half-mile walk from this new subdivision. EDCTA could establish another request only stop near the intersection of Mallard Lane and Pintail Lane that would serve both subdivisions. It appears that there is adequate schedule time available to accommodate the occasional request for service to this stop.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 133
An Eskaton Senior Community is currently under construction on Blairs Lane south of Broadway. The project will ultimately consist of 113 single-family units, 64 condominiums, 60 assisted living apartments, and 40 special care units. Serving this project would require roughly 1.1 additional miles of travel on the local Placerville Route (either in the eastbound or westbound direction), adding approximately 3 minutes running time. Considering the demand for fixed-route service generated by Eskaton Lincoln Manor on Mother Lode Drive (an average of 8 passenger per day generated by 100 apartment units), service to the new Eskaton site would generate on the order of 15 passenger-trips per day.
Temporary Changes to Local Routes to Address Construction Delays
The EDCTA local routes have been designed to efficiently transfer passengers between routes at “timed transfer” points, such as the Missouri Flat Transfer Center. While designed to typically maintain the service schedule, long delays on any one route can cause delays throughout the system as buses are held to allow transfers from the delayed route. In particular, the “interlining” of vehicles between the Folsom Lake College, Diamond Springs, and Cameron Park routes results in delays throughout these routes when one route is delayed. Construction delays at locations without easy alternate routes (such as the Missouri Flat Interchange reconstruction project) can create operational and service quality issues that last for months if not years.
While it is not appropriate or cost effective to design new permanent routes to address relatively short- term construction delays, it may be beneficial to reconfigure how the routes are operated in order to reduce the impacts of construction delays on the overall system. For example, in the current situation where the Folsom Lake College route is impacted by delays, this route could be operated separately using a dedicated vehicle, allowing the other routes to maintain the published schedule. The Folsom Lake College route could then be temporarily operated on a higher frequency schedule. This service would incur a substantial operating cost and would not meet productivity standards, but would allow the overall system to operate more effectively minimizing the impact of construction delays on transit passengers. Optimally, EDCTA should be involved in prior coordination for major construction projects along transit routes, and the incremental costs of service changes necessary to address construction delays could be funded as part of the construction project budget.
IRON POINT CONNECTOR SERVICE ALTERNATIVES
Extend IPC to Sunrise Light Rail Station
One option for the IPC (IPC) would be to extend the route from its current terminus at Iron Point Station (in Western Folsom) to the Sunrise Station. This would add 10.3 miles to the length of the route and would require approximately an additional 25 minutes per round-trip to serve. As there is not this amount of available running time in the current schedule, making this extension would require either (1) an additional bus on the route; (2) dropping service in Folsom to Folsom Lake College and Kaiser; or (3) reducing service frequency from every 120 minutes to every 150 minutes.
This extension of service, moreover, does not increase regional connections. While there is increased light rail service west of Sunrise (every 15 minutes rather than every 30 minutes), every IPC run already makes a direct connection with a light rail departure. Moreover, at present the other stops in Folsom are operated on the eastbound run only. If they were still to be served with this extension, the trip from El Dorado County to these stops would require 15 additional minutes on the bus. At present, roughly one third of current IPC ridership is generated by these other Folsom stops. Given the costs that would be incurred under any option, the negative impact on existing ridership, and the negligible benefits that would be provided, this alternative is not considered further.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 134 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Shift IPC Schedule Mid-Day to Better Serve Commute Times
At present, the IPC schedule does not conveniently serve typical work schedules for El Dorado County residents working in the Rancho Cordova area. For example, a survey of Franchise Tax Board (FTB) employees conducted in December of 2007 indicates that the most prevalent work start time is 7:00 AM (23 percent of all employees) and the prevalent work end times are 4:30 PM (29 percent) and 5:30 PM (22 percent). The existing IPC schedule is not convenient for Rancho Cordova employees working the typical 7:00 AM to 4:30 PM work schedule. In particular, an employee leaving work at 4:30 PM has a first opportunity to catch an eastbound light rail train to Folsom at 4:55 PM, arriving at Iron Point at 5:23 PM. However, they would then need to wait until 6:27 PM for the next departure of the IPC route, arriving in El Dorado Hills at 6:53 – almost two and a half hours after leaving work. If IPC service were not provided during one hour mid-day (such as between 1:40 PM and 2:40 PM, when ridership is relatively low), a 5:27 departure from Iron Point could be provided.
Under this schedule, the existing 5:40 PM departure from Missouri Flat Transfer Center would be dropped from the schedule, reducing the number of daily runs from seven to six. This shift would also affect existing passengers on the 1:40 PM and 3:40 PM IPC runs, including a few passengers per day using the service to travel eastbound from Folsom Lake College, Kaiser, and El Dorado Hills. Overall, however, this alternative would result in a slight increase in ridership. (While it is typically not beneficial to provide an inconsistent schedule, with a two-hour headway on the existing IPC route this is not an important consideration).
Add a 6:40 AM Run and/or a 4:40 PM Run on Iron Point Connector
The current IPC schedule allows El Dorado residents to get to Rancho Cordova employment sites by catching the first IPC run (departing Missouri Flat Transfer Center at 5:40 AM and El Dorado Hills at 6:10 AM) and transferring to light rail at 6:33 AM, arriving in Rancho Cordova a few minutes before 7:00 AM. This work start time is the most prevalent, when 27 percent of surveyed FTB employees start work. In comparison, only 11 percent of FTB employees report an 8:00 AM start time. Based on these factors and the existing ridership, this option would generate ridership of approximately 1,000 passengers per year.
As discussed above, a 4:40 PM IPC run would better serve some commuters. Rather than shifting the schedule, another option would be to add an additional run. This option would increase ridership by roughly 1,300 passenger-trips per year.
Either of these options would require the operation of an additional bus. With the required additional deadhead time, either run would cost $54,800 per year. Subtracting the estimated farebox income, the additional annual operating subsidy would equal $52,600 for the additional morning run or $52,000 for the additional afternoon run.
Serve Red Hawk Casino
The Red Hawk Casino currently under construction along US 50 east of Shingle Springs will be a major new employment center in the existing IPC service corridor. Due to the construction of a new interchange, it would be very easy for the IPC route to be modified to provide direct service to the casino, adding roughly 1 mile of route length and 3-4 minutes of travel time to the existing route. As this running time is available in the current schedule, only the additional mileage-related costs would be incurred, increasing annual operating costs by roughly $3,300 per year.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 135
Ridership that would be generated by this stop can be estimated by a comparison with the similar Thunder Valley Casino north of Roseville. This facility is very similar in size (85,000 square feet of floor area versus a planned 88,000 square feet at Red Hawk). It is currently served by the Placer County Transit Rocklin-Lincoln route, providing hourly service in both directions from roughly 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Over the most recent 12-month period, a total of 38,936 transit passenger trips were served. (It should be noted that several years of service were operated before this ridership level was reached.) Adjusting for the reduced service frequency and span of service provided by the IPC, ridership generated by the Red Hawk Casino is estimated to equal 20,000 per year. These new riders would generate roughly $43,200 in farebox revenues, yielding a net reduction in operating subsidy of $39,900. The primary generator of ridership to the Thunder Valley Casino (as well as other Indian gaming facilities in the region) is reported to be employment, rather than gaming customers.
An alternative means of achieving a transit connection to the new casino would be for the casino operator to provide a shuttle service to an existing IPC stop (such as at the Ponderosa Park-and-Ride), where passengers could transfer. Given that this option would be substantially less convenient for EDCTA passengers and that the subsidy required to operate the IPC could be significantly reduced, direct service to the Casino on the IPC route is preferable.
Changes to Kaiser Permanente Service within Folsom
The access drives at the existing Kaiser Permanente Hospital on Iron Point Road are not well designed for bus service. As a result, the IPC (as well as the Folsom Stage) only serves a stop directly on Iron Point Drive, which requires passengers to walk roughly 600 feet up an incline to the front door. Under this alternative, EDCTA would work with the City of Folsom to encourage improved bus access to this existing facility.
In addition, Kaiser is currently constructing a major new facility at Bidwell Street and Broadstone Parkway. Once completed, the IPC should serve a stop at this new facility.
COMMUTER SERVICE ALTERNATIVES
Curtailing Sacramento Commuter Service
Like transit systems in other outlying counties and cities in the Sacramento Region (such as Yolo County, Yuba/Sutter Counties, Placer County, and Roseville), EDCTA provides an extensive commuter service to downtown Sacramento, with no funding contribution from Sacramento City or County. This is despite the fact that these commuter services provide very significant benefits both to the employment end of the trip (in terms of traffic and parking reductions and increased access to workforce) as well as the residential end of the trip (in terms of improved quality of life, commute cost savings, and environmental benefits). In light of this, and the increasing demands on public budgets, it is appropriate to consider means of reducing the Commuter Service. As discussed below, three alternatives are considered: terminating service at the Sunrise Light Rail station, terminating service in Folsom (at the Iron Point Light Rail Station), and terminating service at the El Dorado/Sacramento County Line.
Terminating Service at Sunrise
Providing service to the Sunrise Light Rail station would allow access directly to Light Rail service on 15 minute headways. To evaluate the impact of shortening the service on ridership, it is useful to consider the quality of service that would be provided. The quality of service would be impacted in the following three ways:
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 136 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Vehicle Travel Time – At present, the Sacramento Commuter service provides about a 46 minute travel time in the peak period from El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride and downtown Sacramento (9th and P Streets) in the morning, and a 58 minute return trip in the evening. If service were to be shortened to Sunrise (the current terminus of every-15-minute light rail service), the transit running time from El Dorado Hills to Sunrise would be roughly 22 minutes (in either direction). The light rail running time from Sunrise to 8th & O Streets is 35 minutes eastbound and 36 minutes westbound. Including 5 minutes for the transfer, total travel time would be approximately 62 minutes in both directions, or an increase of 16 minutes in the morning and 4 minutes in the evening. Due to the inconvenience and uncertainty introduced into a transit trip by a transfer, moreover, passengers typically perceive transfer time as more of a detriment to service than simply the clock time. (It is worth noting that Sac RT plans to provide limited stop service on the Gold Line once the Watt Avenue grade separation is completed in late 2009, which will reduce the in-vehicle running time on some departures by roughly 8 minutes.)
Walk Time to Work – The existing Commuter Service serves a total of 20 bus stops in downtown Sacramento, designated over the years to be convenient to passenger work sites. In comparison, the Gold Line light rail serves 11 stops in downtown Sacramento. As a result, many passengers would be required to walk several additional blocks to and from their work locations.
Quality of the Journey – Commuter Service passengers are currently provided with a direct trip between El Dorado Hills and the downtown Sacramento area, allowing an uninterrupted period to work, read or sleep. In comparison, light rail serves 17 stops between Sunrise Boulevard and 8th and O Streets, requiring passengers to deal with the comings and goings of other passengers. This is typically considered to be a substantial detriment to the quality of a transit trip, particularly for passengers who have the option of commuting in their own car.
Table 44 presents an analysis of ridership impacts associated with these potential alternatives, based on the most recent available research regarding the impacts of these service factors on ridership. This “elasticity analysis” is based on the principals of micro-economics, evaluating the proportionate change in ridership that corresponds to a proportionate change in service quality (such as in-vehicle travel time) based on an “elasticity factor” observed for similar changes in service quality in similar settings. The negative value of the elasticity factor reflects that the service quality factor and ridership are negatively proportionate – as in vehicle travel time increases, for example, transit ridership decreases. Further an elasticity factor of -0.50 indicates that, a one percent increase in vehicle travel time would result in a -0.50 percent decrease in ridership. As indicated, this alternative is forecast to reduce overall ridership by 53 percent, resulting in an annual Commuter Service ridership of approximately 61,000 one-way passenger- trips per year.
The scope of the service required to serve this ridership level would be reduced from current levels, both due to the reduction in running time to serve trips only as far west as Sunrise Boulevard, and also due to the lower seating capacity needed to accommodate the remaining passengers. Total annual vehicle-miles (including deadhead miles) are estimated to be reduced by roughly 70 percent, while annual vehicle-hours would be reduced by roughly 77 percent. Considering that some additional runs per day could be served by cycling the buses on the shorter route, the same span of service could be provided by three fewer buses in the Commuter Service fleet. Overall, annual operating costs would be reduced by approximately $622,000 per year. Subtracting the loss of roughly $307,000 in annual farebox revenues, the total impact of this alternative on EDCTA’s annual operating subsidy requirements would be a reduction of $315,200. A key issue with regard to this alternative is its impact on EDCTA’s overall farebox recovery ratio. The Transportation Development Act requires that, overall, EDCTA maintain a ratio of farebox revenues to total operating costs of 10 percent. As roughly two-thirds of EDCTA’s current farebox revenues are generated by the Commuter Service, a significant reduction in this revenue has the potential to drop the
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 137
TABLE 44: Ridership Analysis of
Commuter Route Reductions Terminate Terminate at Iron
At Sunrise Point Existing Ridership 129,800 129,800
In-Vehicle Travel Time Existing 52 52 With Alternative 62 68 Effective Impact of Transfer 10 10
Effective Travel Time 72 78
Elasticity Value -0.78 -0.78
Out-of-Vehicle Travel Time
Existing 5.00 5.00 With Alternative 10.00 10.00 Elasticity Value -0.40 -0.40
Factor: Quality of the Journey 0.80 0.80 Ridership with Alternative 61,000 57,000
Percent Change -53% -56% Note: Assumes no change in effective total fare per trip. Sources
Forecasting Incremental Ridership Impacts from Bus Route Service Changes, Ecosometrics, 1991.
TCRP Report 95: Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, Transportation Research Board, 2003
ratio below this state requirement. An evaluation of this ratio with termination of Commuter Service at Sunrise Boulevard is shown in Table 45. As indicated, this alternative (exclusive of other potential alternatives) would reduce the overall farebox return ratio from an estimated 18 percent to 13.3 percent. While a significant reduction, the farebox return ratio would still remain at acceptable levels.
Another factor is whether the Sac RT Gold Line Light Rail service has the passenger capacity to accommodate the additional passenger load that would be added west of the Sunrise Station by this alternative. Considering the existing typical peak passenger loads carried by the Commuter Service (approximately 160 passengers) and the proportion of this ridership that would remain on the service with the alternative, this option would add roughly 75 passengers per hour to the ridership on Light Rail. Sac RT staff indicates that there is adequate capacity on the Gold Line service to accommodate this additional ridership. Capacity of the light rail service, moreover, is planned to be expanded in late 2009 once the grade separation at Watt Avenue is completed.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 138 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
TABLE 45: Evaluation of Systemwide Farebox Ratio
With Commuter Route Reduction
Terminate At Terminate at Existing Sunrise Iron Point
Impact of Alternative Farebox Revenues -- -$306,600 -$324,500 Operating Costs -- -$621,800 -$686,400
Farebox Revenues $858,300 $551,700 $533,800 Operating Costs $4,764,000 $4,142,200 $4,077,600
Farebox Return Ratio 18.0% 13.3% 13.1%
Terminating Service in Folsom (Iron Point Light Rail Station)
If service were to be shortened to Iron Point, the bus travel time from El Dorado Hills would be 17 minutes (in either direction). Light Rail travel time is approximately 56 minutes westbound and 45 minutes eastbound, resulting in a total transit travel time of 62 minutes eastbound and 73 minutes westbound. Comparing to the Commuter Service option, this change in service would add 16 minutes in the morning and 15 minutes in the evening. (The limited stop service to be implemented in late 2009 would reduce these figures by 8 minutes.) Compared with the six stops between El Dorado Hills and P and 9th Streets on the Commuter Service, under this option a passenger would travel through 19 stops.
An evaluation of ridership impacts of this alternative, as shown in Table 44, indicates that this alternative would reduce existing Commuter ridership by 56 percent (slightly more than the Sunrise alternative). Operating costs would be reduced by $686,400, or 83 percent. Subtracting $324,500 in reduced farebox revenues, net subsidy would be reduced by $361,900. As with the previous alternative, this option as shown in Table 45 would reduce the systemwide farebox return ratio substantially (to 13.1 percent), but would still provide a ratio that attains the minimum Transportation Development Act (TDA) standard. Roughly 70 passengers per hour in the peak direction would be added to the Gold Line Light Rail ridership, which can be accommodated on the existing service.
Terminating Service at the El Dorado/Sacramento County Line
A final option considered for the reduction of Sacramento Commuter service would be to simply terminate service at a new transit center near the El Dorado/Sacramento County line (such as along White Rock Road). This has the policy advantage of ensuring that El Dorado County transit resources are used wholly within El Dorado County. Presumably, another transit provider such as Sac RT would provide transit service west of this new transit center. The additional transfer required of passengers by this option (probably in addition to a second transfer to Light Rail) would reduce ridership by at least an additional 25 percent below the previous alternative. The El Dorado Short Range Transit Plan study can only address decision making regarding transit resources under the control of El Dorado County organizations. As this option would presuppose transit funding decisions on the part of others outside the prevue of this document, it is not appropriate to consider it further as part of this study.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 139
Changes in Commuter Service Runs
Additional service has been requested as follows:
A new AM run filling the “hole” in the schedule between Route 8 (arriving at P and 9th Streets at 7:24 AM) and Route 10 (arriving at the same location at 8:18 AM). This route could serve the new Bass Lake Park-and-Ride, reducing parking demand at the El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride. Based on existing ridership and an elasticity analysis, this new route would increase overall ridership by an estimated 6,000 passengers per year. With the associated increase in fare revenues, it would require a $9,300 increase in annual operating subsidy.
In the PM period, service could be provided departing P and 9th Streets around 4:00 PM, filling the hole in the schedule between the 3:35 PM departure of Route 8 and the 4:18 PM departure of Route 5. Net impact on ridership is forecast to equal 4,500 passenger-trips per year. Operating subsidy would be increased by roughly $15,900 per year.
On the other hand, the Route 10, PM run is currently carrying roughly 7 passengers per day. This last run of the day (departing at 6:15 PM) benefits the overall service by providing passengers with some flexibility to work a bit late or accomplish an errand in downtown Sacramento without missing the last bus. The net impact of eliminating this run would therefore be more than simply the existing passengers on this specific run, and is estimated to equal 3,300 passenger-trips per year. This option would reduce overall subsidy requirements by an estimated $21,300 per year.
Commuter Service to El Dorado Hills Employment Sites for Sacramento County Residents
Total employment (total number of jobs) in the El Dorado Hills area has grown to over 6,500. In addition, information received from the major commuters indicates that the large proportion (on the order of 50 percent) of employees live in Sacramento County – and an even higher proportion of lower-wage workers (more likely to make use of a transit service in this setting) live in Sacramento County.
At present, service for Sacramento County residents commuting to El Dorado Hills is very scant. While two AM and three PM existing Sacramento Commuter buses are operated with an “open door” in the “reverse” direction, the first of these services does not get to the El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride eastbound until 8:15 AM. In addition, the IPC provides eastbound service departing Iron Point at 6:27 AM and arriving at El Dorado Hills at 6:53 AM. Once a commuter reaches the El Dorado Hills Park-and- Ride, they can currently only complete their commute if they happen to work within walking distance.
One option would be to extend one or more of the Reverse Commute runs to other El Dorado Hills employment areas, such as the El Dorado Hills Business Park, possibly on an on-request basis, and to also serve the Iron Point Light Rail Station. However, the first Reverse Commute run in the morning does not get to El Dorado Hills until 8:15 AM (after most work start times). This would also delay other passengers using the Reverse Commute service. Therefore, this option is not considered further.
Another option would be to provide a dedicated service. One bus could be used to operate hourly service from the Iron Point Light Rail Station to the major employers in El Dorado Hills. A reasonable schedule would be to operate three runs in the AM commute period (providing connections to Light Rail at 5:30 AM, 6:30 AM, and 7:30 AM) and three runs in the PM commute period (providing connections at 4:30 PM, 5:30 PM and 6:30 PM). This service would require an additional vehicle, and would increase annual operating costs by $186,000 per year.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 140 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Transit ridership generated by high-tech employers in suburban settings in other areas is disappointingly low. For instance, transit services to such areas in Lincoln, Roseville, and Vacaville have all generated very low ridership levels. This can be attributed to several factors, including the non-traditional work shifts (such as 6 AM to 6 PM shifts), the dispersal of employee residences over a wide area, the free and plentiful availability of parking at the worksite, the relative lack of traffic congestion in the “off peak” direction, and the variability in work shifts associated with changes in demand levels. Given these factors and the estimated number of El Dorado Hills employees living along the US 50 corridor in Sacramento County (per the SACOG SACMET model), it is estimated that this service would generate roughly 11,900 passenger-trips per year. Assuming a fare structure similar to IPC, these riders would generate approximately $25,700 in annual revenues, resulting in a subsidy requirement of $160,300 per year.
A final option to serve this transit “market” would be to implement one or more of the other alternatives discussed above. For instance, the local connection issue could be addressed through implementation of the El Dorado Hills local service. In addition, expanding IPC to hourly service along with a local service could yield hourly service availability between Iron Point and El Dorado Hills Business Park. While this would require a transfer, it would be a sufficient level of service to adequately test the potential for this transit “market” without additional cost.
Reinstatement of El Dorado County Transit Authority Transit Service to Rancho Cordova
Until July 2006, EDCTA operated a commuter bus service from El Dorado County to the majority of employer sites in Rancho Cordova, consisting of two AM and two PM runs per day. Ridership in FY 2004/05 totaled only 2,935 one-way passenger-trips, which generated only 2.8 passenger-trips per vehicle-hour of service, and a farebox return ratio of only 6 percent. Due to this poor ridership (typically two to four passengers per run), the service was discontinued.
The US 50 Corridor Transit Plan identified a range of reasons why the ridership on the service was not higher. Some had to do with the quality of the transit service, notably the limited number of departures in the morning (two runs, effectively serving a 6:00 AM and 8:00 AM start time) and the ride quality of the older buses used in this service. However, the larger issue was that the “competing” travel mode – the private automobile – provides a more convenient overall trip, as (1) extensive free parking is available at employment sites, (2) overall traffic congestion on the US 50 corridor between El Dorado County and Rancho Cordova is not sufficient to discourage auto use (3) auto drivers are not tied to a fixed transit schedule and (4) there is no need to make the inconvenient transfer at a Park-and-Ride lot. As a result, the proportion of commuters from El Dorado County to Rancho Cordova employment sites using transit was found to be only 0.3 percent, while the proportion traveling to work in downtown Sacramento on the EDCTA transit service was found to be a full 40 percent. In addition, surveys at the FTB indicate that roughly 5 percent of total employees live in El Dorado County.
Since the cessation of service, the potential demand for EDCTA service has been increased by additional development in the area. In particular, two new seven story buildings have been built at the FTB campus in Rancho Cordova, resulting in an increase of approximately 3,000 new employees. Overall, employment in the area previously served by the EDCTA Rancho Cordova route has climbed by roughly 20 percent. While it can also be argued that demand has been increased by the rise in gas prices in recent years, there is little evidence that this has significantly shifted commute travel modes, particularly for the economic level typical of Rancho Cordova employees. Along with revisions to schedules and improvements in vehicles, it is reasonable to assume that a new Rancho Cordova route would generate 30 percent higher ridership than previously.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 141
A service similar to that previously operated (two scheduled trips in the AM and in the PM peak periods, using two vehicles) at current unit costs would incur a cost of roughly $193,100 per year. At a ridership of approximately 3,800 passenger-trips per year, $8,700 in fares would be generated, yielding a subsidy requirement of $184,400 per year.
Serve a Rancho Cordova Stop on Some EDCTA Sacramento Downtown Commuter Runs
One reason for the inefficiency of EDCTA service to Rancho Cordova in the past is that substantial vehicle running time (and costs) were expended on providing direct service to many employers dispersed over a wide area. This was necessary because local collector service (that could be used to transfer passengers to their destination) were limited to very few Regional Transit routes.
The City of Rancho Cordova, however, is currently developing plans for a comprehensive network of local services (possibly including a streetcar route) that could provide the convenient “last mile” service from a centralized transit station to the various major employers. This network is outlined in the 2006 City of Rancho Cordova Transit Master Plan and detailed implementation plans are currently being developed. When available, the potential for EDCTA Downtown Commuter service to conveniently serve a reasonable level of ridership in the Rancho Cordova area would be significantly improved.
Under this alternative, several existing Sacramento Commuter runs per day in each direction would divert off of US 50 to serve a single stop in Rancho Cordova that requires a minimum amount of running time and can provide good connections to the Rancho Cordova local services. Service to the Mather/Mills Light Rail Station, could be accomplished while only adding 4 to 5 minutes of running time to Commuter Routes. A reasonable minimum level of service would be to make this stop on runs passing through Rancho Cordova at roughly 6:30 AM, 7:30 AM, 4:30 PM, and 5:30 PM. Assuming that driver shift times are increased by 5 minutes on these runs, the total annual cost to serve this stop would be roughly $6,400 per year. The biggest drawback of this alternative would be the increase in in-vehicle travel time to the passengers commuting downtown, which could result in a slight reduction in ridership. Given that it would depend on the quality of local connecting transit service, it is not possible to estimate new ridership that would be generated by this alternative. However, given the relatively small impact to the EDCTA program, this alternative seems to have a high longer term potential, so long as plans to expand local services in Rancho Cordova are realized.
Provide El Dorado County Transit Authority Service to Sacramento International Airport
At present, private shuttle service between El Dorado County and the Sacramento International Airport is expensive (on the order of $110 round-trip). While it is possible to use EDCTA services either to downtown Sacramento or to light rail to connect to existing Yolobus service to the airport for a much lower overall fare, this option requires two to three hours of one-way travel time and the limited schedules precludes service to many of the existing flights.
There have been public requests for direct EDCTA bus service, at a typical transit fare, directly to and from the airport. However, for such a service to be viable it would need to be a very substantial expansion of EDCTA services and would raise the following institutional issues:
A reasonable service could be operated using two vehicles providing service roughly every two hours on a four-hour round-trip. Rather than providing door-to-door service the vehicles would serve Park- and-Ride lots and EDCTA transit centers and then proceed directly to the airport.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 142 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
A long span of service would be required. A review of the airport schedules indicates that flights arrive and depart around the clock. A reasonable span would be to serve flights departing as early as 6:00 AM and as late as 12:00 AM. Given the time required to pass through security, service would need to begin operating at roughly 3:00 AM (to arrive at the airport by 5:00 AM), and would not end service until roughly 2:00 AM.
With a spare, three additional vehicles would be required.
Additional dispatch staff would be required, as this would substantially expand the hours of EDCTA operation.
Assuming service is operated every day of the year, this service would cost approximately $1,500,000 to operate. While passenger fares would help to offset this cost, if fares were set at typical public transit fare levels (such as a $5.00 one-way fare), the remaining public subsidy would still be very significant.
Another option would be to offer very limited service. One van could operate 14 hours per day per year 6:00 AM to 8:00 PM. With this schedule, an airport service would cost approximately $460,000 to operate. However, as it would only serve passengers with both flights between roughly 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, it would not serve a substantial proportion of air travelers.
This service would use public dollars to directly compete against existing private transportation providers.
Given these factors, this alternative does not appear consistent with the overall mission of the EDCTA, and is not considered further.
RURAL ROUTE ALTERNATIVES
South County Service
The ridership generated by the scheduled service to the South County Mt. Aukum/Somerset area has been disappointing. Similar to the better-utilized Grizzly Flat service, the South County service consists of a morning and evening run operated on one day per week (Tuesday). Though the service has been offered for several years and efforts have been made to publicize the service in the South County community, only 151 passenger-trips were served over the course of the last year (or roughly 3 one-way trips per day of service). On a two-week recent sample period, two out of the three passengers were served along the Grizzly Flat Route, indicating that ceasing service on South County would not completely eliminate their service. While additional efforts to market the service can always be tried, EDCTA staff has already taken the steps necessary to ensure that those South County residents most likely to use the service are already aware of it, and additional marketing is not likely to generate significant increases in ridership.
One option would be simply to eliminate the South County service. This would reduce overall marginal operating subsidy requirements by roughly $12,000 per year, eliminating service to the existing 151 annual passenger-trips (assuming no existing passengers shift to the Thursday Grizzly Flat service.) Another option would be to eliminate the separate South County service and instead serve any requests for service before or after service to Grizzly Flat. In order to not add to the in-vehicle ride time for Grizzly Flat passengers, South County residents would be served before Grizzly Flat in the morning and after Grizzly Flat in the afternoon. However, this would result in very long in-vehicle travel times: for instance, a passenger at the Bistro/Fairplay stop would need to board the bus at roughly 8:10 AM for a 10:00 AM arrival at Missouri Flat, and would depart Missouri Flat at 3:00 PM but not get off the bus until
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 143
roughly 4:50 PM. Serving a single one-way ride request in South County would add approximately a half- hour of running time and 12 miles to the Grizzly Flat route, incurring an operating cost of $77. Compared with the recommended service efficiency goal of no more than $35 in operating subsidy per passenger- trip, serving a single rider would not be efficient. A travel group of three passengers or more, however, would attain this standard. One alternative that would provide at least a minimum opportunity for transit service therefore would be to offer service before and after Grizzly Flat service (on Thursdays) for groups of three or more. Requests would need to be made at least 2 days in advance, as the driver’s schedule would need to be adjusted for an earlier work start time and later work end time.
Provision of Service between Georgetown and Auburn
Residents of the northwestern portion of the County, including the communities of Georgetown, Cool, and Pilot Hill, tend to travel to Auburn for medical appointments, pharmacy visits, and other needs. Similar to the Grizzly Flat service, a service could be established operating one day a week at least initially, with a single morning run and a single afternoon run. A van would deadhead to Georgetown and then provide service through Cool (and Pilot Hill on request) to Auburn and North Auburn before returning to the operating base. The afternoon service would operate in the opposite direction. This route requires roughly 2 hours to operate per trip, with a minimum travel distance of 53 miles.
The long deadhead travel distance from the EDCTA operating base makes the operation cost of direct EDCTA service in this area inefficient. Rather, the most cost-effective means of providing this service would be to contract with an Auburn-based public transit program. Placer County funds a transit service in this region and is currently going out to bid for a new contractor. To ensure that the best contractor is identified and to comply with regulations, EDCTA would release a Request For Proposals for this service and fully consider other potential service contractors.
Applying typical Coordinated Transportation Service Agency operating costs this service would incur an annual operating cost (including provision of a van) of approximately $14,000. Ridership, based on actual ridership for similar services in rural portions of Northern California (including Grizzly Flat) adjusted to reflect population characteristics, is estimated to equal approximately 1,400 one-way passenger-trips per year or 27 per day. Subtracting an estimated $2,700 in annual passenger fares, a subsidy of $12,300 would be required.
Provide Service between South Lake Tahoe and Placerville
With the cessation of Greyhound service several years ago, the public transportation service available for trips between the Placerville area and the South Tahoe portion of El Dorado County is limited to the once- a-day Amtrak Thruway service. In the past, this has created a transportation problem for persons in the Tahoe area that must access County services only available at the County seat in Placerville, such as those required to travel to Juvenile Court in Placerville and to transport some mental health department clients between South Lake Tahoe and Placerville. However, the El Dorado County Probation Department indicates that there is now both a Juvenile Hall and Juvenile Court in South Lake Tahoe as well as Placerville, so the need for transportation between the two areas is minimal (perhaps one time a month). El Dorado County Health Department already owns one van which can be used to transport clients between Eastern and Western El Dorado County and may be better served as a recipient of the van grant program discussed in the vehicle alternatives section. Given that providing service even twice a day one day a week would incur an annual operating cost of approximately $34,000, this option would not be cost-effective and is therefore not considered further. However, there may be options to partner with other jurisdictions along the corridor (such as the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency) to expand intercity public transit options that could result in local funding requirements more consistent with the needs generated in Western El Dorado County.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 144 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
DIAL-A-RIDE/SAC-MED ALTERNATIVES
Expanded Dial-A-Ride Service
As the population of the study area increases, and as the population ages, demand for DAR service will increase. In addition, a review of ridership logs demonstrates that no additional capacity exists during peak periods. As such, a reasonable alternative is to add approximately 12 vehicle service hours per weekday (increasing the peak vehicles in operation by two) to meet existing and potential future demand.
Under this service alternative, the daily service vehicle service hours would be allocated by operations staff depending upon anticipated needs. For example, staff could operate one vehicle throughout the service day to “distribute” ridership over the entire day, or staff might find it more beneficial to use two buses during the peak periods. Either way, this alternative assumes that operations staff is best able to determine how these additional resources would ultimately be used. As presented in Table 43 above, this alternative would increase annual vehicle service miles by 68,200 and vehicle service hours by 3,000. This would require an additional $261,700 in operating funds. Annual ridership under this alternative is anticipated to be 7,300 one-way passenger-trips and passenger fare revenues are anticipated to be $14,400. The resulting annual subsidy would be $247,300.
It should also be noted that other alternatives expanding scheduled services could reduce the existing and future demand for DAR services. In particular, establishment of a fixed-route service in El Dorado Hills and/or provision of hourly service along the US 50 corridor within the County could reduce the need for time-consuming (and thus costly) DAR service to the western end of the County.
Potential Changes to SAC-MED Program
At present, the two-day-a-week SAC-MED service occasionally has capacity constraints, requiring potential passengers to shift their day of an appointment or find other transportation. There are three potential means of addressing this issue:
Limit Eligibility – The service is currently available to all. A review of driver logs for several days of service indicates that roughly 60 percent of passengers are seniors (with or without disabilities), 40 percent are non-seniors with disabilities, and few if any passengers are neither senior nor disabled. There is thus little benefit in restricting use of the service to seniors or disabled only.
Transfer Passengers to Other Transit Providers – Another option would be to transport El Dorado County residents as far as a common transfer point with other paratransit service providers. For instance, service could be provided to the Iron Point Light Rail Station, where passengers would transfer to either the Folsom DAR program or to the Paratransit, Inc. program providing service to the remainder of Sacramento County. This option would require passengers to make reservations both on the EDCTA SAC-MED service as well as on the connecting service in both directions. Given capacity constraints on the various services, it would be difficult to arrange connecting round-trips. Transfers for wheelchair users often requires ten minutes or more, which would tend to reduce any savings in travel time for EDCTA. Moreover, any delay at the medical office could cause passengers to miss their connections, either stranding them at the transfer point or requiring EDCTA to delay service (and incur additional cost). For these reasons, this option is not considered to be feasible.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 145
Restrict Service Area – With the growth in medical facilities in Folsom, it may be possible for some existing SAC-MED passengers in the future to meet their needs closer to El Dorado County. Service could potentially be restricted geographically, such as to Folsom and Rancho Cordova only. However, some existing passengers must travel to facilities only available in other areas such as Carmichael or Sacramento, including UC Davis Medical Center and state rehabilitation facilities.
Expand Service – Service could also be expanded, such as by providing SAC-MED on an additional day per week. This option would increase operating costs by $22,800 per year and is estimated to serve 360 passenger-trips per year (or 180 round-trips). Subtracting the roughly $1,500 in annual fares, this option would increase operating subsidy requirements by $21,300.
Volunteer Transportation Program
Another means of expanding mobility in a community is through a volunteer transportation program. There are several good examples of volunteer programs in the region:
Senior Services, Inc. is a non-profit organization in Amador County that assists seniors throughout the County, including a transportation program called “Common Grounds,” which uses volunteers with private cars to transport clients locally for medical trips. Currently, the program has ten volunteer drivers. A lift-equipped van is also available to provide trips (with advance notice), but most of the trips are provided with volunteer vehicles. The transportation is funded through an Area 12 Agency on Aging grant.
The Amador Sheriff’s Posse Volunteer Transportation program is a senior outreach program operated by the Sheriff’s Department, with eight volunteers. Volunteers either use their own private vehicles or a donated sedan to provide medical trips. The costs of operating the vehicle are absorbed by the County Sheriff’s Department budget. While they receive calls daily for requested trips, they are only able to provide between two and four trips per week. In addition to seniors, they receive trip requests from Adult Protective Services and other social service programs.
Nevada County’s Telecare program is a non-profit transportation provider which has a DAR service within the County, but relies on volunteers for long-distance trips outside of the service area. The client is charged $0.55 per mile. The driver is reimbursed at $0.40 per mile, which more or less pays for the vehicle cost. Telecare receives $0.15 per mile for administrative costs, which includes dispatching and managing the volunteers. This service is therefore paid for by the client, with the volunteer donating his or her time. There have been as many as twelve volunteer drivers in recent years, but currently there are six. Virtually all of the trips provided by the volunteer program are for medical appointments primarily in Roseville or Sacramento.
Volunteer programs are particularly effective for social service program site transportation (such as to and from a senior center), as it is easier to motivate drivers to provide transportation to those that they already know through the program. It is important to note that a volunteer transportation program is typically not completely “free” to a public transit agency, due to the staff time needed to organize the program. In particular, there is a need for ongoing efforts to recruit new drivers, as there is typically a high rate of turnover in volunteers. Another issue is that of liability. Accidents on the part of volunteer drivers can potentially make the organizing agency liable. It is therefore important for the agency to screen potential volunteers for clean driving records and ongoing proof of insurance. This is also a reason why most volunteer transportation programs are organized through a non-profit organization that already has an ongoing volunteer program for other purposes, rather than through a public transit agency. It should also be noted that the vehicle donation program discussed below could aid a volunteer transportation program.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 146 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Vanpool/Ridesharing Programs
Another, less expensive alternative for public transit service between Western El Dorado County and Sacramento would be the establishment of a vanpooling program. An excellent nearby example of a successful employee vanpooling program is operated by Placer County, California, in the Roseville/Auburn area. Under such a program, public funds are used to lease 12- to 14-passenger vans, to market the service, and to underwrite any initial operating losses. Over the long term, the operating costs of these vans are paid for by passenger revenues. Van drivers would be “volunteer” employees in El Dorado County who, in exchange for driving duties, ride for free and are typically allowed to use the van for a set number of personal travel miles.
Vehicles would be stored overnight at driver’s homes. Fueling and maintenance could be provided on a contractual basis with a local private garage.
This alternative has the advantage of being a relatively low cost, low risk, way of developing a transit market in this corridor. The most cost-effective means of developing a vanpooling program while minimizing the potential financial risk to the County would be through a third-party vehicle leasing firm like VPSI, Inc. Vanpools are typically planned such that little or no long-term public operating subsidy is required.
A minimum of eight potential passengers are typically considered to be required to sustain a vanpool, in light of “turnover” in ridership. Successfully maintaining a vanpool requires either a strong effort on the part of a major employer, or an ongoing continual effort on the part of a public agency to recruit new passengers and ensure that adequate driver training, insurance, and vehicle maintenance is provided. It is also worth noting that many of the major employers in the region, both in El Dorado County and along the US 50 corridor in Sacramento County, already operate vanpool programs – a new vanpool program organized by EDCTA would therefore be effectively “competing” with these established vanpool programs. In light of the very limited potential market, this option does not appear to be feasible in Western El Dorado County.
COMPARISON OF SHORT-RANGE SERVICE ALTERNATIVES
This section presents a comparison of the various alternatives discussed above, as measured by a series of performance indicators. Not all of the indicators are applicable to each alternative; for instance, it is impossible to consider the marginal one-way passenger-trips per hour of service for an alternative that does not change the number of hours of service.
Figure 35 presents a simple comparison of the impact of the various alternatives on annual ridership levels. As shown in this figure and Table 43, the highest potential for increasing ridership is the Express/Community Route alternative (29,500 passengers), followed by service to Red Hawk Casino (20,000), the El Dorado Hills Circulator (13,600) and the commuter service from Folsom to El Dorado Hills (11,900). On the other hand, terminating the Sacramento Service at Sunrise or in Folsom would reduce ridership by 68,800 and 72,800 passengers per year, respectively. The range of ridership impact across the alternatives is quite wide, and other factors must be considered along with this measure before deciding which alternatives are the most advantageous.
The impacts on annual operating subsidy requirements are shown in Figure 36. The greatest subsidy increase would be required for the Express/Community Route ($565,800), followed by the El Dorado Hills Circulator Route ($298,600) and the expansion of DAR service ($247,300). Subsidy reductions associated with the reductions in the length of the Sacramento Commuter service would equal $361,900 for termination in Folsom or $315,200 for termination at Sunrise. Other alternatives that could result in
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 147
FIGURE 35 Annual Ridership by Alternative
Change in Annual Ridership
(80,000) (60,000) (40,000) (20,000) - 20,000 40,000 60,000
El Dorado Hills Fixed Route Circulator
Express / Community Routes
Combined Pville Express/ Pollock Pines Route
Add Earlier Pollock Pines Run
Extend Local Route Service 1 Hour in Evening
Sunday Service on Local Routes
Sunday Taxi Voucher Program
Expand Placerville Route to Serve Eskaton
Expand Placerville Route to Serve Mallard Lane
Shift IPC Schedule Mid-Day
Add 6:40 AM IPC Run
Add 4:40 PM IPC Run
Serve Foothill Oaks Casino on IPC Alternative
Terminate Commuter Service at Sunrise
Terminate Commuter Service in Folsom
Add Commuter AM Route Arriving 7:50 AM
Add Commuter PM Route Departing 3:50 PM
Eliminate Commuter Route 10 PM Run
Provide Commuter Service from Folsom to EDH
Reinstate Commuter Service to Rancho Cordova
Eliminate South County Service
Georgetown -- Cool -- Auburn Service
Provide Sac-Med Service One Day per Week
Expand Dial A Ride
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 148 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
FIGURE 36 Annual Subsidy Requirement by Alternative
Change in Annual Subsidy (In Thousands)
$(500) $(400) $(300) $(200) $(100) $- $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600
El Dorado Hills Fixed Route Circulator
Express / Community Routes
Combined Pville Express/ Pollock Pines Route
Add Earlier Pollock Pines Run
Extend Local Route Service 1 Hour in Evening
Sunday Service on Local Routes
Sunday Taxi Voucher Program
Expand Placerville Route to Serve Eskaton
Expand Placerville Route to Serve Mallard Lane
Shift IPC Schedule Mid-Day
Add 6:40 AM IPC Run
Add 4:40 PM IPC Run
Serve Foothill Oaks Casino on IPC Alternative
Terminate Commuter Service at Sunrise
Terminate Commuter Service in Folsom
Add Commuter AM Route Arriving 7:50 AM
Add Commuter PM Route Departing 3:50 PM
Eliminate Commuter Route 10 PM Run
Provide Commuter Service from Folsom to EDH
Reinstate Commuter Service to Rancho Cordova
Eliminate South County Service
Georgetown -- Cool -- Auburn Service
Provide Sac-Med Service One Day per Week
Expand Dial A Ride
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 149
relatively large reductions in subsidy requirements are the shift in mid-day Iron Point Commuter service (-$47,000), replacement of Sunday DAR with a taxi voucher program (-$46,800), and service to Red Hawk Casino (-$39,900).
Table 46 presents a series of “performance indicators” for the various service alternatives discussed above and below:
A key measure of the operating effectiveness of the alternatives is the marginal one-way passenger- trips per vehicle service hour. Of those alternatives that increase both vehicle-hours and ridership, the “best” alternative is adding a new AM Sacramento Commuter route which would carry 15.8 passenger-trips per vehicle-hour. An alternative that reduces both vehicle-hours and passenger-trips also results in a positive value for this performance measure. As shown, terminating the Sacramento Commuter service at Sunrise would reduce ridership by 10.2 passenger-trips for every hour of service reduced, while the figure for termination in Folsom would equal 9.9. The negative value for this measure for the mid-day shift in IPC (-1.6) represents an increase in passenger-trips over a decrease in vehicle-hours. No value is provided for this measure for those options that do not include a change in vehicle-hours.
Another key measure is the marginal subsidy per passenger-trip. This directly measures the key “input” to a public transit program (public subsidy funding) against the key “output” (ridership). The “best” values are the negative values or values approaching zero, representing a reduction in subsidy accompanied by an increase in ridership (the mid-day shift in IPC service, the service to Red Hawk Casino, the combination of Pollock Pines and Placerville Express routes, and the Placerville local route service to new areas). For those alternatives increasing both subsidy and ridership, a lower value represents a better alternative. The additional AM Sacramento Commuter run, for example, is relatively efficient, as it requires only $1.55 in additional subsidy per new passenger. Other relatively efficient alternatives in this category are the additional PM Sacramento Commuter run ($3.53) and the Georgetown – Cool – Auburn service ($8.79). Other alternatives reduce both subsidy requirements and ridership, indicating that a high positive value (representing the dollars saved per passenger trip lost) is better. The elimination of South County service stands out by this measure, saving $80.41 in subsidy for every passenger-trip eliminated.
The marginal farebox return ratio performance measure is calculated by dividing the marginal change in farebox revenues by the marginal change in operating costs. The negative value for the mid-day shift in IPC indicates the best value, as it reflects an increase in revenues over a decrease in costs. For alternatives increasing both revenues and costs, the service to the Red Hawk Casino stands out with a very high value of 1,309 percent. Other relatively good alternatives by this measure are the modifications to Placerville service to new areas (around 150 percent) and the additional Sacramento Commuter AM run (74 percent).
An overall assessment of financial impact also requires consideration of capital needs. The greatest increase in fleet size would be required for the Express/Community Routes alternative, the reinstatement of Rancho Cordova service, and the expansion of DAR, all of which would increase peak vehicles in service by two. On the other hand, terminating the Sacramento Commuter service either at Sunrise or Folsom would reduce peak vehicle needs by three. A number of alternatives would not require additional vehicles (such as evening, Sunday or earlier service), as they would use existing vehicles during times when they are not currently in use.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 150 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
TABLE 46: El Dorado County Transit Authority Service Alternatives Performance Analysis FY 2008-2009 Ridership and Cost Analysis Performance Measure Marginal Marginal Marginal Marginal Marginal Passengers Passengers Cost Per Subsidy Per Farebox Alternative Per VSH Per VSM Pass. Trip Pass Trip Ratio
Status Quo Local Route Service 8.4 0.5 $9.69 $8.35 13.8% Rural Routes 2.4 0.1 $37.25 $35.13 5.7% Dial-A-Ride Service 2.4 0.1 $35.92 $33.95 5.5% Sacramento Commuter Service 14.9 0.5 $6.37 $1.91 70.0% Iron Point Connector 1.9 0.1 $48.74 $46.58 4.4% Special Services 12.3 1.2 $6.14 $5.82 5.2% Sac Med 1.7 0.1 $57.00 $52.75 7.5% Subtotal (Excludes Contracted Services) 7.3 0.3 $14.45 $11.84 18.0%
Local Route Alternatives El Dorado Hills Fixed Route Circulator 3.6 0.2 $23.29 $21.96 5.7% Express / Community Routes 5.5 0.2 $16.10 $14.23 11.6% Combined Pville Express/ Pollock Pines Route – – $0.00 -$1.34 -- Add Earlier Pollock Pines Run 3.6 0.2 $22.44 $20.33 9.4% Extend Local Route Service 1 Hour in Evening 4.9 0.3 $16.58 $15.25 8.1% Sunday Service on Local Routes 3.2 0.2 $25.00 $23.67 5.3% Modify Placerville Route to Serve Eskaton – 2.1 $0.43 -$0.23 154.0% Modify Placerville Route to Serve Mallard Lane Development – 1.0 $0.89 -$0.44 150.0%
Iron Point Connector Alternatives Shift Schedule Mid-Day to Better Serve Commuters -1.6 -0.1 -$56.63 -$58.75 -3.8% Add a 6:40 AM Run 1.6 0.1 $54.80 $52.60 4.0% Add a 4:40 PM Run 2.1 0.1 $42.15 $40.00 5.1% Serve Foothill Oaks Casino – 5.7 $0.17 -$2.00 1309.1% Sacramento Commuter Alternatives Terminate at Sunrise 10.2 0.4 $9.04 $4.58 49.3% Terminate in Folsom 9.9 0.3 $9.43 $4.97 47.3% Add AM Route Arriving Around 7:50 AM 15.8 0.5 $6.00 $1.55 74.2% Add PM Route Departing Around 3:50 PM 11.8 0.4 $8.00 $3.53 55.8% Eliminate Route 10 PM Run 8.7 0.3 $10.91 $6.45 40.8%
Provide Commuter Service from Folsom to EDH 5.6 0.2 $15.63 $13.47 13.8%
Reinstate Commuter Service to Rancho Cordova 2.3 0.0 $50.82 $48.53 4.5%
Rural Services Eliminate South County Service 1.1 0.0 $81.63 $80.41 1.5% Georgetown -- Cool -- Auburn Service 6.9 0.3 $10.00 $8.79 12.1%
Provide Sac-Med Service One Additional Day per Week 1.5 0.0 $63.33 $59.17 6.6%
Expand Dial A Ride 2.4 0.1 $35.85 $33.88 5.5%
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 151
As is presented in Table 46 and in Figures 35 and 36, the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative differ substantially. These performance indicators should be studied carefully before deciding which, if any, of these service alternatives should be implemented in the short or long term. The relative effectiveness of each service needs to be weighed against their ability to achieve the goals of the transit service and against funding limitations.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 152 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Chapter 7 Capital Alternatives
Before transit services can be provided, a myriad of capital items are required. The capital items required for public transit service consist of vehicles, vehicle maintenance facilities, passenger amenities such as shelters and benches, and computer equipment. Indeed, many capital elements will be required to maintain and potentially expand EDCTA services over the coming years, as discussed below.
VEHICLE ALTERNATIVES
The size and types of EDCTA’s fleet are presented in Table 32. A total of 26 revenue vehicles are eligible for replacement as of 2007 and an additional 14 will be eligible for replacement by the end of the planning period. Based on EDCTA’s selection of the service alternatives presented in the previous chapter, a Capital Plan will be presented in a subsequent step of this study that will identify an appropriate vehicle acquisition schedule.
In FY 2006/07, the following prices are assumed for each type of bus currently used for the various services provided by EDCTA. These estimates do not assume the vehicles will use alternative fuel.
DAR/Local Routes - The cost of a Type III 20 passenger bus, similar to those used by EDCTA for contracted social services and local route services, purchased through the state contract is $60,000. The design life of this vehicle is 5-years/150,000 miles. The cost of a Type IV van similar to those used for DAR is $40,000. The design life of this vehicle is 4 years or 100,000 miles.
Commuter Routes – The medium heavy-duty Bluebird Excel buses that EDCTA currently uses for their commuter fleet will no longer be available. The only comparable types of buses being manufactured are heavy duty urban transit-style vehicles and over-the-road coaches. Transit vehicles designed for use in cities and urban areas typically have some rear facing seats with no reclining seats. Not only does this type of arrangement not suit a passenger with a commute time of one hour or more but it reduces the seating capacity of the vehicle. The FTA designated service life of a heavy- duty bus is 12 years or 500,000 miles, though it is likely that an over-the-road coach will last for 20 years. In comparison, a transit-style heavy duty bus may only last 15 years. Other transit systems with long distance commuter operations such as Placer County Transit, Fairfield/Suisun Transit, and San Joaquin RTD use over-the-road coaches. Yuba-Sutter Transit recently began a one month demonstration project using a Motor Coach Industries D 4500, 57 passenger vehicle. The cost of an over-the-road coach ranges from $500,000 to $550,000 whereas the cost of a heavy duty transit-style bus is $350,000 to $400,000. With the potentially longer life span, increased seating capacity and better rider amenities, the over-the-road coach is the best option for EDCTA.
Retired Van Donation Program
The EDCTA fleet currently includes 12 specialized transit vans which are used for DAR operations. FTA service life policy dictates that light-duty vehicles and specialized vans are eligible for replacement after 4 years or 100,000 miles. Two of these vans (# 9901 and # 9902) are designated backup vehicles and have logged over 180,000 miles each over 8 years of service. Four additional Chevy Vans (vehicles # 205, 206, 207, and 401) are currently eligible for replacement. Typically, retired vehicles are sold in the open market.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 153
Recently, several transit agencies have implemented van grant programs to qualifying organizations in order to enhance local transportation options. As examples, Intercity Transit in Washington has donated retired vanpool vehicles to qualifying agencies, while Contra Costa Transit Authority has donated several paratransit vans to community based organizations. Contra Costa Transit Authority’s “Community Connections Van Grant Program” is particularly applicable to El Dorado Transit. The program is multipurpose: dispose of old paratransit vans while providing community human service organizations the resources to offer transportation to clients who would otherwise ride the local ADA paratransit service. The following summarizes requirements associated with the Contra Costa Community Connections program:
The recipient must be a local non-profit organization or government entity whose primary purpose is to serve the elderly and disabled.
The organization must be able to provide at least 50 trips each month to ADA-eligible clients. During a two year provisional period, ADA passenger ridership data is recorded and reported monthly to Contra Costa Transit Authority, after which the organization is released from reporting requirements and the van is considered to be owned by the organization.
Preference is given to organizations which have the greatest need for the vehicle, reliable funding sources, and could provide a large amount of trips to ADA-eligible clients.
The community based organization must repaint the van so that it is no longer recognizable as a public transit vehicle.
Additionally, Contra Costa Transit Authority reimburses the van recipient for $10,000 of vehicle maintenance costs ($5,000 per year for two years) and provides free driver training.
Given the limited capacity of EDCTA’s DAR service, donating retired EDCTA vans to social service agencies in the region could help to relieve demands on the system. Additionally, not all of El Dorado County residents and services are easy for DAR to serve. For example substance abuse programs in Georgetown are inaccessible by public transit, and the senior center in South County is served by transit once a week and by the Senior Shuttle once a month. Donating a van to organizations in outlying parts of the County may relieve the DAR system of longer, less cost-efficient trips.
Chapter 4 includes a review of human service agencies/organizations potential “program related” transit demand. The transit demand analysis indicated that there is significantly more transit demand from social service type of programs than passenger-trips being provided. El Dorado County Mental Health Services generates the greatest transit demand. The County already owns one van which provides approximately 40 trips per month for patients to the clinics and facilities in Placerville and occasionally for transport between Western El Dorado County and South Lake Tahoe. El Dorado County Senior Services also uses one van to transport approximately 140 seniors per month for shopping trips and to the Senior Nutrition Dining Centers.
In order to distribute a retired van equitably, EDCTA should implement an application and qualification process. Contra Costa Transit Authority requires that a van grant program recipient must be able to provide 50 ADA-eligible passengers trips per month. The recipient may provide trips for non ADA- eligible passengers as well. Not all organizations surveyed in El Dorado County solely deal with ADA- eligible persons. Some organizations are located in areas not currently served by DAR. Additionally, organizations who work with youth in the community have expressed interest in a van donation program. As EDCTA’s DAR system is not limited to ADA-eligible individuals, it seems appropriate to broaden van donation eligibility to organizations who assist all types of transit dependent groups (disabled,
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 154 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
elderly, youth, and low-income). In FY 2006/07, DAR provided on average 2,700 trips per month. If a high level of transit service were provided, most social service program categories listed in Table 40 generate transit demand significantly over 200 trips per month. This includes trips already provided on DAR and through the social service agencies. With this in mind, a reasonable eligibility requirement for a van grant donation program in El Dorado County would be 100 trips per month. In order to insure that the donated vans are put to good use, some sort of reporting requirements should be implemented for a period of at least one year. To minimize EDCTA’s costs, the van recipient should be responsible for all vehicle maintenance but free driver training should be provided.
Organizations that are potential van grant recipients in Western El Dorado County include El Dorado County Mental Health, PAVES, Vision Coalition, El Dorado County Senior Shuttle Program, Family Connections, Headstart, and the Boys and Girls Club.
Alternative Fuels
To reduce pollution from mobile sources, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has adopted a variety of regulations as required by the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990. On February 24, 2005, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted new emissions reduction regulations applicable to diesel or alternative fueled transit vehicles. According to the rule, on-road vehicles operated by a public transit agency that are less than 35 feet in length and 33,000 pounds Gross Vehicle Weight Rate (GVWR), but greater than 8,500 GVWR, powered by heavy-duty engines fueled by diesel or alternative fuel are considered transit fleet vehicles and are subject to the following requirements (CARB, 2007):
The particulate matter emissions of the total transit fleet (excluding non-transit fleet vehicles such as gas-powered vehicles) as of January 1, 2005 is considered the baseline emissions measurement.
By December 31, 2007, particulate matter emissions of total transit fleet vehicles had to be reduced by 40 percent from baseline and NOx emissions could be no more than 3.2 grams per brake horse- power hour (g/bhp-hr). By December 31, 2010, total particulate matter emissions of transit fleet vehicles must be reduced by 80 percent from baseline and NOx must be no more than 2.4 g/bhp-hr.
An urban bus is a passenger carrying vehicle owned or operated by a public transit agency, powered by a heavy heavy-duty engine, intended primarily for intra-city operation. Typically this includes buses 35 feet or longer and/or greater than 33,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). CARB set different standards for urban buses:
NOx emissions fleet average must be no more than 4.8 g/bhp-hr.
Diesel-powered urban bus particulate matter emissions must be reduced by 85 percent or meet 0.01 g/bhp-hr times the total number of diesel-powered urban buses in the fleet.
If the transit agency chooses an alternative fuel path, at least 85 percent of urban bus purchases must be fueled by alternative fuel and particulate matter emissions need only be reduced by 60 percent from the 2002 baseline by 2007. The 85 percent reduction of particulate matter emissions will apply to transit agencies using alternative fuel in 2009.
A commuter service bus means a passenger-carrying vehicle powered by a heavy heavy-duty diesel engine that is not otherwise an urban bus and which operates on a fixed-route primarily during peak commute hours and that has no more than ten scheduled stops per day, excluding Park-and-Ride lots. A commuter service bus is subject to transit fleet vehicle rules.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 155
There are 14 urban buses and 5 transit fleet vehicles in the EDCTA fleet. EDCTA is in the process of completing the retrofit of all diesel engines to meet the 0.01 g/bhp-hr particulate matter emissions standard. In order to develop a working concept of the different alternative fuels, their advantages and disadvantages, and their potential application for the EDCTA fleet, the following review of the eight relatively common alternative fuel technologies is presented below.
In addition, global climate change or “global warming” is a major environmental issue which needs to be acknowledged in planning documents. Climate change is caused by the release of greenhouse gases (GHG’s) such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride into the atmosphere which traps heat and increases temperatures near the earth’s surface. Forecasted, long-term consequences of climate change range from a rise in the sea-level to a significant loss of the Sierra snow pack. As a direct result of Assembly Bill (AB) 32, CARB has been charged with developing rules and regulations that will reduce GHG emissions in the State of California to 1990 levels by 2020. The “global” affect of each alternative fuel is also considered in the alternative fuel discussion.
Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel
Diesel-fueled engines have traditionally dominated the transit vehicle marketplace with their fuel efficiency and durability. From an air quality perspective, diesel engines have very low tailpipe emissions of CO and other organic gases. The concern from an air quality perspective, however, has been the emission rates of NOx and particulate matter.
Due to increasing environmental pressure to reduce the above emissions, the Environmental Protection Agency and CARB, has developed stringent NOx and particulate matter regulations as referenced above. The final Clean Air Amendments permit the use of clean diesel in urban buses, provided that the clean diesel engines meet the particulate matter standards imposed by the CARB. In partial response to the 1990 CAAA amendments for cleaner burning fuels and the continued development of the previously mentioned alternative fuels, the traditional diesel fuel engine has made great strides toward evolving with a cleaner burning particulate trap and catalytic converter technology. All 2007 and later model year buses will be designed to comply with CARB particulate matter and NOx emissions.
Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) is diesel fuel with 15 parts per million (ppm) or lower sulfur content. This ultra-low sulfur content enables use of advanced emission control technologies such as particulate traps and catalytic converters on light-duty and heavy-duty diesel vehicles. Fuel with a higher sulfur fuel content can deactivate these devices and nullifies their emissions control benefits. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency required 80% of the highway diesel fuel refined in or imported into the United States (100% in California) to be ULSD as of 2006. One hundred percent must be ULSD nationwide by 2010. Different requirements apply to non-highway diesel.
Methanol
Most of the methanol used commercially in the United States is manufactured from natural gas, making it economical to use. The tailpipe emissions of methanol are generally considered to be about half as reactive as an equal mass of emissions from gasoline or diesel fuel, promoting its use to reduce ozone in urban areas, such as Los Angeles. By volume, methanol has slightly more than half the energy content of diesel fuel and slightly more than half the energy content of gasoline. Due to the above characteristics, a methanol engine will consume a little over twice the volume of fuel per mile of service, as compared to a diesel engine.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 156 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Transit authorities in Los Angeles and Seattle have in the past retired their methanol programs due to the fuel’s highly corrosive properties. Authorities from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) cited that the buses are prone to costly mechanical repairs. Officials of the Seattle Metro eliminated their methanol demonstration program after a trial period of five years. Test results of the program indicated that severe engine malfunctions were experienced on the buses at 60,000 and 70,000 miles, largely attributed to the corrosive nature of the fuel.
Ethanol
While not being as corrosive as methanol, the major use of ethanol is currently limited as an octane additive and oxygenate for gasoline. As such the same basic engine can be used with both diesel and ethanol fuel. According to Information Update, (Detroit Diesel Corporation, February 1992), the cost of ethanol is almost twice as much as that of methanol, making its use limited as a motor vehicle fuel. Aside from the fuel’s economic drawbacks, ethanol produces lower carbon monoxide (CO) emission rates than gasoline, has a higher energy density than methanol, and has a lower toxicity than either methanol or gasoline. Ethanol’s affect on greenhouse gases however depends on how the fuel is made. Ethanol produced from corn has life cycle GHG emissions about 15 percent less than gasoline vehicles. Ethanol produced from woody biomass (E-100) has GHG emissions 60 to 75 percent below conventional gasoline (excluding any impacts associated with land clearing).
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
Natural gas is a domestically produced alternative fuel and is readily available to end users through the utility infrastructure. The strength of CNG as an alternative fuel for transit buses is that it is generally less expensive per unit of energy than gasoline or diesel fuels. Per the October 2007 Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Report, the average price of CNG in the West Coast region was $2.60 per diesel gasoline equivalents compared to $3.21 per gallon of diesel gasoline. The fuel also has the potential to reduce NOx emissions and particulate matter when compared to diesel, although low sulfur diesel fuel used in conjunction with particulate matter traps can reduce particulate matter emissions by a similar amount. GHG emissions from CNG vehicles are approximately 15 percent to 20 percent lower than from gasoline vehicles, since natural gas has a lower carbon content per unit of energy than gasoline. However, CNG vehicles have about the same greenhouse gas emissions as diesel fuel vehicles, with lower CO2 emissions offset by higher hydrocarbon emissions.
Many people – both inside and outside the transit industry – perceive CNG as the future fuel of choice. Others see CNG as a stop-gap measure that can be used to reduce vehicle emissions until other technologies (hydrogen fuel-cell or combustion-electric hybrid) are developed further. Indeed, the decision to pursue CNG comes down to the underlying goals of the agency considering alternative fuels, the local politics, the financial resources of the agency, and the commitment of decision-makers.
Historically, the weakness of CNG is its difficult storage requirements. CNG is stored in high pressure cylinders at pressures up to 3,000 pounds per square inch. The high weight, volume, and cost of the storage tanks for CNG have been a barrier to its commercialization as an alternative fuel. The recent development of lighter aluminum tanks, however, has reduced this disadvantage to some degree.
The advantages of a CNG bus are no visible pollution and quieter operation. The problems encountered with CNG include the inconsistent quality of local CNG supplies, limited range of CNG vehicles, and continued industry concerns regarding reliability.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 157
According to the FTA report, Transit Bus Life Cycle Cost and Year 2007 Emission Estimation, a CNG bus costs between $25,000 to $50,000 more than a comparable diesel bus. This is due to the higher cost of the engine itself and the higher cost of the fuel tanks. In addition, the study cited that a CNG refueling station for an urban transit fleet costs between $320,000 and $7,400,000. Additional costs would be incurred to upgrade the new maintenance facility with required safety features and to provide emergency response equipment and training. These facility modification costs range from $500,000 to $15,000,000 for the urban transit agencies reviewed.
In a 1996 Department of Energy report, Pierce Transit (Tacoma, Washington) estimated that CNG engines are about 20 percent less efficient than diesel engines on a per gallon equivalency which reduces the range of CNG buses. CNG buses are described as having a driving range of about 300 miles (of course depending upon the capacity of the gas cylinders) compared to a little more than 400 miles for diesel buses. Typically, buses smaller than 35 feet in length are unable to accommodate enough fuel tanks to operate a full urban cycle service day without refueling.
The issue of reliability is surrounded by diverging viewpoints. In the same 1996 Department of Energy report, Pierce Transit noted no large difference in reliability between CNG- and diesel-powered buses. The main problem they encountered in the beginning of their CNG program was difficulty with the fuel control system – a problem they note has been resolved for the most part by advances in the technology and continued training of maintenance staff. Indeed, CNG technology is still saddled somewhat with the reliability problems that surfaced in the late 1980s when it was still very much in its infancy – especially when dual-fuel technology was still the state-of-the-art. The technology truly has come a long way since then, and reliability is seemingly much better.
However, in a 1999 report the Contra Costa County Transit Authority (CCCTA) noted that engine manufacturers encounter CNG-related warranty claims that are between 50 percent and 250 percent higher than their diesel counterparts. This may be a particular problem for agencies like EDCTA who are not located close to an CNG engine warranty provider. CCCTA also cited experience by BC Transit in British Columbia, Canada. BC Transit started a two year comparison of 25 1996 New Flyer CNG- powered buses and 25 1996 New Flyer diesel-powered buses, all with Detroit Diesel engines. Results for the CNG fleet were as follows: the roadcall rate was 4½ times higher, parts and labor costs were 132 percent higher, and overall maintenance costs were 61 percent higher. CCCTA has chosen to pursue “clean diesel” technology.
One of the major drawbacks for CNG use in El Dorado County is the lack of a nearby fueling station. The nearest CNG refueling stations to the EDCTA yard are the Placer County Public Works station in Auburn and a public fueling station in Rancho Cordova about 25 miles away. The EDCTA Park-and-Ride Master Plan lists a regional alternative fueling station near the Sacramento County/El Dorado County line south of US 50 and north of White Rock Road as capital improvement priority Number 8. The County Line Transit Facility project has been discussed preliminarily at a staff level between the City of Folsom, County of El Dorado and transit operators. Total costs of this project which include a Park-and-Ride facility are estimated at $5.4 million.
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
To store more energy onboard a vehicle in a smaller volume, natural gas can be liquefied. At atmospheric pressure, LNG occupies only 1/600 the volume of natural gas in vapor form. One Gasoline Gallon Equivalent equals about 1.5 gallons of LNG. Because it must be kept at such cold temperatures, LNG is stored in double-wall, vacuum-insulated pressure vessels. LNG fuel systems typically are only used with heavy-duty vehicles. The potential advantages of the fuel lie in its economic considerations, where the
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 158 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
fuel’s processing costs are much less than that of the other gaseous fuels. LNG also has a greater potential to reduce NOx and HC emissions when compared to diesel and gasoline fuels. Currently, the biggest obstacles facing LNG are the lack of availability and its storage and handling facility requirements.
Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)
The advantages and disadvantages of LPG (commonly referred to as propane) are similar to those of natural gas. The advantage of LPG is that gasoline engines can be easily converted, due to its high heating and high octane characteristics. Propane vehicle power, acceleration, and cruising speed are similar to those of gasoline-powered vehicles. The range of dedicated gas-injection propane vehicles is generally less than gasoline vehicles because of the 25% lower energy content of propane and lower efficiency of gas-injection propane fuel systems. LPG is not as commonly used for transit vehicles in the United States as other alternative fuels.
Hybrid Electric
An emerging vehicle propulsion technology that has recently gained national interest are hybrid electric systems. Under this arrangement, battery-powered electric motors drive the wheels; the batteries are charged using a small internal combustion engine (diesel-, gasoline- or alternative-fueled) to power an electric generator. This arrangement provides near-zero emissions, as the engine operates within a very narrow and efficient operating range.
Operating costs for a hybrid electric system are typically lower in comparison to conventional diesel- or CNG powered arrangements due to greater fuel economy and reduced break wear (the batteries are also charged through regenerative breaking, which tends to slow the vehicle while it recoups energy). In addition, hybrid electric buses provide better acceleration and quieter operation than conventional internal combustion engine propulsion systems. Another benefit of hybrid electric technologies is that it does not require the large infrastructure investment that is required for CNG or LNG technologies. However, the average price of a 40-foot hybrid bus typically ranges from $450,000 - $550,000 when compared to $280,000 - $300,000 for a conventional diesel bus. In addition, conventional sealed-gel lead acid battery systems typically last only two to three years, and replacement units cost on the order of $25,000. Better battery technology currently exists that could extend battery life (i.e., nickel metal hydride), but this technology currently costs $35,000 to $45,000. Hybrid buses which use ultra-low sulfur diesel and particulate matter filters have 90 percent lower emissions than a conventional diesel bus. Hybrids have less GHG emissions than both conventional diesel and CNG buses.
Hybrid electric propulsion systems have been tested at several large transit programs, most notably at New York City Transit. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory prepared an evaluation of the benefits of 10 new CNG Orion VII buses and 10 new Orion VII hybrids used for New York City Transit. According to the report, hybrid maintenance costs were lower than the CNG buses, battery replacement rate for the hybrid vehicles was about 4.5 percent per year, brake repair costs were 79 percent lower on the hybrid buses than the CNG buses and the hybrids had fewer roadcalls. New York City Transit has since placed an order for an additional 500 hybrid buses. Other agencies which have tested hybrid technologies include Sunline Transit in Thousand Palms (California), the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Orange County Transportation Authority, Omnitrans in San Bernadino, TriMet in Portland (Oregon), King County Metro Transit in Seattle, the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority in Philadelphia, and New Jersey Transit.
Hybrid electric technology can be combined with various alternative fuel types such as bio-diesel or propane to increase emissions benefits. Full electric vehicles and hydrogen-powered buses are two other emerging technologies that are being tested by several transit agencies, although many experts consider
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 159
these technologies to be on the leading edge of current understanding. Considerable research is still necessary regarding the life cycle costs and benefits of these technologies before they should be considered as viable options for small transit agencies.
Biodiesel Fuel
Biodiesel can be legally blended with petroleum diesel in any percentage. The percentages are designated as B20 for a blend containing 20% biodiesel and 80% petroleum diesel, B100 for 100% biodiesel, and so forth. B20 is the most common biodiesel blend in the United States and provides the benefits of biodiesel but avoids many of the cold-weather performance and material compatibility concerns associated with B100. B20 can be used in nearly all diesel equipment and is compatible with most storage and distribution equipment. Particulate matter, CO and Hydrocarbon emissions are reduced by B20 and significantly more by B100, however NOx emissions actually increase. The closest biodiesel fueling station to EDCTA is in Meyers, CA near South Lake Tahoe.
Summary
The Transit Bus Life Cycle Cost and Year 2007 Emission Estimation report concluded that ULSD or “clean diesel” buses are still the most economic technology, followed by buses fueled by B20 biodiesel. Fuel economy rated best among the hybrid buses but overall costs were offset by battery replacement costs. As for GHG emissions, the hybrid buses also outperformed the other alternative fuels followed by B20 diesel, ULSD and then CNG. In the short-term, continuing to follow the ULSD diesel path seems the most appropriate for EDCTA, especially considering EDCTA is in the process of completing the retrofit of all transit fleet vehicle and urban bus diesel engines to meet the 0.01 g/bhp-hr particulate matter emissions mandated by CARB. However EDCTA should remain open to the ideas of alternative fuels as technology progresses and alternative fuel infrastructure is built.
PASSENGER FACILITIES
The “street furniture” provided by the transit system is a key determinant of the system’s attractiveness to both passengers and community residents. In addition, they increase the physical presence of the transit system in the community. Bus benches and shelters can play a large role in improving the overall image of a transit system and in improving the convenience of transit as a travel mode. More importantly, shelter is vital to those waiting for buses in harsh weather conditions. In addition, passengers could benefit by installing passenger amenities at major bus stops, particularly adjacent to regional shopping centers, medical facilities, and social service agency facilities.
Adequate shelters and benches are particularly important in attracting ridership among the non-transit- dependent population – those that have a car available as an alternative to the bus for their trip. Preference should be given to locations with a high proportion of elderly or disabled passengers and areas with a high number of daily boardings. Lighting and safety issues are equally important along major highways. Consideration of evening service should include an analysis of lighting needs at designated bus stops. This could range from overhead street lighting to a low power light to illuminate the passenger waiting area.
According to Tolar Manufacturing, who has most recently supplied EDCTA with passenger amenities, the approximate cost of a 13 foot metal shelter is $4,000. Another $550 can be added for a perforated metal 8 foot bench and an additional $550 would be required for a 30 gallon trash receptacle. Adding solar lighting to a shelter costs on of order of $1,500. While total costs including installation depends on site characteristics and the ability to use public works staff during off periods, total costs for a new shelter
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 160 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
fall in the range of $8,000 to $10,000. Maintenance and repair of vandalism to bus benches and shelter is a very minor cost since they are designed to be very resistant to vandalism. As a result, cleaning and maintenance costs are minor.
EDCTA will be provided with 15 new bus shelters with no capital or maintenance cost through an advertising agreement with Lamar Transit Advertising. The following locations are proposed as the sites of new bus shelters to be funded by Lamar:
1004 Fowler Way, Placerville 1266 Broadway, Placerville Future Cameron Park Community Center Mother Lode Drive and South Shingle Springs Drive (near Gold Harvey Market) Mother Lode Drive and South Shingle Springs Drive (near Family Chevrolet) Cold Springs Road Site 1 (Cold Springs Dental) Cold Springs Road Site 2 (DMV) Marshall Medical Building, Palmer Drive, Cameron Park Cimarron Road and La Canada, Cameron Park Pleasant Valley and Oro Northeast corner of Pony Express Transit and Sanders Drive Northeast corner of Carson and Larson Road Corner of Broadway and Pointview Drive, Placerville Tentative location at US 50/Coloma Road (EDCA Lifeskills)
All new passenger amenities should comply with the design standards referenced in the El Dorado Transit Authority Transit Design Manual (LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2007).
Local Routes
EDCTA has made great strides over the past five years in implementing additional passenger facilities. A total of 19 shelters and 15 additional benches are currently provided in the local route service area. In order to comply with the Service Quality Goals proposed in Chapter 5, shelters should be constructed at the following local route bus stops. These locations are not included as part of the shelter agreement with Lamar.
Old City Hall Child Development (FLC) Raley’s (Placerville Dr.) Safeway (Cameron Park Place) Placerville Senior Center (existing bench) Pleasant Valley/Church Street Union Mine High School
Additionally benches should be placed at the following local route bus stops:
Placerville Post Office M.O.R.E. Gold Country Inn Lake Oaks/Patterson
The approximate total cost of attaining the passenger amenity standard for the local routes is $72,200.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 161
Park-and-Ride Lots
The US 50 Corridor Transit Plan (LSC Transportation Consultants, 2006) reviewed existing and future parking demand at the El Dorado County Park-and-Ride lots created by future commute patterns and new light rail services. By 2010 approximately 60 additional spaces will be required to meet demand at the El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride and 34 additional spaces would be required at the Cameron Park lot and 172 spaces. All other El Dorado County Park-and-Ride lots were found to be large enough to accommodate future demand. By 2027, an estimated 172 spaces will be required in El Dorado Hills and 74 spaces in Cameron Park. The El Dorado County Transit Authority Park-and-Ride Master Plan, completed by Dokken Engineering in 2007, indicated the following top five priority capital improvements with possible construction dates before 2012:
Bass Lake Road Multi-Modal Facility – The 200 space Park-and-Ride facility is a condition of development in the Bass Lake Hills Specific Plan. The developer is required to acquire a site and construct 100 parking spaces. EDCTA will need to provide funding for the remaining 100 spaces, however mitigation fees received from other developers in the area could be used to fund this project. The lot will be located east of the El Dorado Hills lot and west of the Cambridge Park-and-Ride and will satisfy short-term parking demand associated with the Cameron Park and El Dorado Hills Park- and-Ride lots.
Ponderosa Park-and-Ride Facility – Reconstruction of the driveway and loading area is required to allow transit buses to pickup passengers in the lot instead of roadside. Caltrans SHOPP Minor B funding has been designated for this project.
Placerville Multi-Modal Station – The plan includes the expansion of the parking area to 130 spaces from 55 spaces.
Central Transit Transfer Center – This center will act as a transfer facility for SAC-MED as well as include some Park-and-Ride capacity. It will be located adjacent to EDCTA’s operations and management center in Diamond Springs.
Missouri Flat Road Park-and-Ride – This project would replace the interim Missouri Flat Road bus transfer facility with an improved transfer station and 25 passenger Park-and-Ride lot in a new location. Unfortunately, finding an available suitable location has become a challenge.
In order to comply with the Service Quality Goals proposed in Chapter 5, the following Park-and-Ride lots shelters should be constructed at these Park-and-Ride lots:
Ponderosa Park-and-Ride – A shelter and information kiosk is included in the Park-and-Ride capital improvement program and will be funded by Caltrans.
Rodeo Road Park-and-Ride – This facility is owned by El Dorado County.
El Dorado County Fairgrounds Park-and-Ride – This facility is owned by the County Fair Association.
Adequate lighting is important for safety and security at Park-and-Ride lots as EDCTA commuter routes have many scheduled stops during non-daylight hours. Therefore, the approximate cost of two shelters with benches, trash can and solar lighting is $13,200.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 162 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities
At one end of their trip or the other, virtually all transit passengers also travel on foot or on bicycle as part of their trip. A key element of a successful transit system, therefore, is a convenient system of sidewalks and bikeways serving the transit stops. Additionally, by promoting non-motorized forms of transportation, EDCTA can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants. EDCTA should continue to work with the planning and public works departments of El Dorado County and the other jurisdictions in the region to review construction plans and schedule priorities for pedestrian and bicycle improvements to best coordinate with transit passenger needs. Generally, all local route and commuter buses should have bike racks and this is the case with EDCTA. Only four EDCTA cutaway vehicles do not have bike racks and these buses are primarily used for the contracted social services route rather than general public services. In FY 2005/06, EDCTA received a BTA grant to replace 2-bike racks with 3-bike racks on all buses. Unfortunately the 3-bike racks are not structurally compatible with El Dorado Transit’s Type VII buses.
Bicycle racks for bike parking should be provided at bus stops where there is the potential for a high level of patrons access by bike, such as near educational facilities. Elements to consider when improving bicycle facilities at transit stops include:
Location – Bicycle parking and storage should be conveniently located near the bus shelter/passenger loading area but away from the main flow of pedestrian traffic so there is no conflict. They should also be placed in an area where few street crossing are required. Constructing bicycle parking facilities at a bus stop where cyclists often lock their bikes to sign posts or utility poles can enhance the appeal of the transit stop.
Security – Commuting cyclists require long-term bike storage and therefore require higher security at the parking facility. One option is bicycle “cages” which provide security for the bicycle while allowing security personnel to see the contents of the cage. Unless a bike cage is geared towards a specific office park or college campus, this type of bicycle parking tends to be vulnerable to theft. Bicycle lockers are another secure option. For shorter-term bike storage, providing a sturdy bike rack, ensuring that the area is clear of hazards and obstacles, and providing lighting if night time use is anticipated are good practice.
Type of rack – Bicycle racks vary from the old fashion type which only holds the wheel of the bicycle to “wave” racks where the bike frame can be locked in one location and the inverted “U” rack where the bike frame can be locked to the rack in multiple locations. Racks can be made out of square or rounded metal piping and hold anywhere from 2 to 14 bicycles. The square metal piping is more resistant to theft.
Bicycle rack bike parking costs can range from $100 for a 2 bike setup to $500 for a 10 bike rack. Bike locker costs range from $1,300 to $3,000 depending on the type of material used and locking mechanism.
ADVANCED PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES
Recent advances in communication and communication technologies have impacted all segments of modern society, and have found new applications in the transit industry. These technologies have come to be known as Advanced Public Transportation Systems (APTS). For purposes of the EDCTA environment, there are three promising technologies within the APTS umbrella that have been developed over recent years: Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) systems, Mobile Data Terminals (MDT), and Electronic Fare Management Systems.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 163
APTS Currently in Use at EDCTA
Currently EDCTA employs Zonar Electronic Vehicle Inspection Report Technology for the primary purpose of fleet maintenance management. “Tags” are placed at important inspection points on each vehicle. During daily vehicle inspections, each driver places a hand-held reader near each tag and keys in the condition of that part of the vehicle. After the inspection is complete, the reader is returned to a vehicle mount inside the bus where the data is transmitted wirelessly to maintenance and operations staff. This technology improves operational efficiency by allowing managers to be informed of potential maintenance issues in a timely manner. The Zonar system also ensures that pre-trip vehicle inspections are properly performed. Packaged with EDCTA’s Zonar technology is a GPS system which allows transit supervisors to remotely pinpoint the route and stops of each bus and receive in-route information such as vehicle speeds and excessive idling. Although vehicle on-time performance can be monitored using the Zonar system, maintenance related issues are the primary focus of this technology.
EDCTA also employs Trapeze Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) software which incorporates transit route, schedules, demand response trip orders, and vehicle assignments to allow dispatchers to more efficiently schedule and dispatch trip requests.
Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL)
Originally developed in the trucking and package delivery industries, AVL has increasingly found application within transit services. AVL employs in-vehicle transponders and a central geographic mapping system using geo-positioning satellites to locate, track, and monitor vehicles. The central computer system automatically or manually (by the dispatcher) polls one or more vehicles. The polled vehicle transmits the longitudinal and latitudinal coordinates, time/date and other information if available (such as riders on board, etcetera) back to the central computer. The dispatcher knows the vehicle’s location based on triangulation of the signals received from the global positioning satellites. A computer screen in the dispatch office displays a map indicating vehicle location, with an accuracy of plus or minus four feet. This map can also display direction of travel and on-time status (a different color for vehicles operating behind schedule, for example). Another potential benefit of AVL is increased emergency response in case of an accident or security threat.
A number of rural and small urban transit systems have implemented AVL systems. Examples include Boone County Transportation System (Iowa), Belle Urban System (Racine, Wisconsin), Blacksburg Transit (Virginia), Dakota Area Resources & Transportation for Seniors (Minnesota), Cape Code Regional Transit Authority (Massachusetts), and Flagler County Transit (Florida). The extent to which each has incorporated these systems into a system-wide APTS program varies according to the complexity of each transit system1. From 2001 to 2005 the Wisconsin Department of Transportation surveyed several small to medium sized transit agencies before and after implementation of AVL systems. The results were summarized in the Evaluation of User Impacts of Transit Automatic Vehicle Location System in Medium and Small Size Transit Systems. One important finding of this research was that the implementation of AVL improved on-time performance by 36 percent in some cases.
According to the Federal Transit Administration, the average cost of a baseline AVL system including on- board GPS, vehicle tracking integrated with operations control center dispatching and security systems is $315,000. When combined with other technologies or processes, AVL can deliver increased benefits in the areas of fleet management, systems planning, safety and security, traveler information, fare payment, and data collection. Introduction of an AVL system is often the first step in a more comprehensive APTS implementation.
1 FHWA-RD-98-146, U.S. Department of Transportation.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 164 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Pros and Cons for EDCTA: The complexity of the local transit services makes efficient connections between services very important. The availability of AVL would be a great help to dispatchers in directing efficient connections between various EDCTA services (particularly for connections between the local routes at Missouri Flat). With the aging of the population, demand for demand response services is likely to continue to grow. Implementation of AVL technology into the EDCTA’s existing CAD program would be extremely useful in maximizing the efficiency of demand-response services, particularly with regard to service to the more outlying portions of the EDCTA service area. It also is likely that a state-of-the-art AVL system would increase on-time performance, by providing transit supervisors more monitoring tools. The significant benefit of AVL for EDCTA would stem from combining the system with other technologies such as MDTs or Automatic Passenger Counters (APC) so that passenger boarding and alighting data by stop could be obtained. On the downside, implementing all these technologies is expensive, requires careful research as to which systems are compatible, and may not be worth the financial input. As with all the APTS discussed later in this section, there are the additional costs of maintaining and operating AVL that potentially outweigh the benefits. Studies have shown that the primary benefit of AVL is to improve on-time performance. Unless on-time performance becomes a major issue at EDCTA, the financial impacts of AVL technology are likely to outweigh the benefits.
Mobile Data Terminals
Mobile Data Terminals (MDTs) are a form of on-board communication technology between transit drivers and operations staff. Using a text format transmitted via radio/cell phone, dispatch messages, vehicle location, passenger counts, engine performance, mileage, and other information is directly communicated to the transit agency office. MDTs can effectively replace paper manifests and allow for easier and more thorough analysis of route performance. Additionally, MDTs limit frustration and time when radio messages between dispatchers and drivers become inaudible and require repeating.
This form of technology can be particularly efficient when paired with other ITS systems such as electronic fare payment, CAD and scheduling, automatic passenger counters, and AVL. An MDT/CAD combination allows dispatchers to make optimal changes to itineraries when necessary and to automatically communicate updated information to drivers. Communication systems can also be integrated with AVL systems to provide real-time location data with every communication exchange. This information can be transmitted in voice or text form.
MDTs can also be used to assist with the efficiency of systems planning and fleet management. A MDT-AVL system combination can gather data and link the operations data to the transit agency's Geographic Information System (GIS) to be analyzed for long-term planning and service adjustments. This data could include real-time ridership figures generated by another technology, Automatic Passenger Counters (APC) that can be used by for long-range service planning or in the short-term by operations supervisors to add vehicles when demand outpaces the current in-transit capacity. Transit vehicles and their communications systems can be installed with a dedicated channel for emergency response. MDTs can include a pre-programmed emergency message that when integrated with AVL technologies can help provide location and pertinent information about a distressed vehicle. In addition, a silent alarm or CCTV camera video feed from a transit vehicle or transit facility to the operations or security center can be employed.
According to TCRP Synthesis Report 70 (2007), which documents a survey of transit agencies who employ MDT technologies, 39 percent of respondents use MDT to monitor on-time performance. The exact cost of an MDT is difficult to determine without going through the procurement process, and the price is very dependent on the number of units ordered the features available. According to the TCRP survey, MDTs cost on the order of $1,000 to $4,000 per unit. Installation of the MDT units cost roughly
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 165
$500-$1,000 per unit. Transit agencies reported that annual maintenance is on average $200 per unit. In addition to the initial capital costs, MDT manufacturers may charge monthly or annual fees for technical support. Each driver will need to be trained on the MDT, which can take up to 8 hours per driver.
Pros and Cons for EDCTA: The primary purpose of the MDT technology is to facilitate communication between drivers and dispatchers. When interfaced with CAD software, MDTs would increase communications efficiency particularly for the EDCTA DAR vans which use cell phones to communicate. Currently, EDCTA does not automatically collect on-time performance data, though the Zonar system has the capability to generate reports that will assist in this department. With MDTs, EDCTA would be able to more effectively and efficiently compile standard transit performance measures such as passengers per vehicle service mile, passengers per vehicle service hour and on-time performance. Particularly, determining the performance of the Cameron Park, Diamond Springs and Folsom Lake College routes individually could be facilitated through the combination of MDTs and AVL. Case studies with MDTs in rural transit systems have shown that some regions attempting to implement MDTs were unable to do so due to an inadequate radio communications networks. EDCTA staff have indicated that there are “dead zones” in some areas of the County and radio conflicts in portions of downtown Sacramento. More in depth research would be required to confirm that a good data communications network could be established encompassing all of the EDCTA service area.
Electronic Fare Management System
A transit systems fare management system encompasses the receptacle for depositing passenger fares and fare media. Currently EDCTA uses standard manual fareboxes with a flip door. As for fare media, EDCTA uses plastic monthly and lifetime passes and paper transfers, Sac RT transfers and scrip tickets. Advanced fare systems are currently available that can make change, accept credit/debit cards, track passenger boarding activity by route, run and stop, speed the passenger boarding process, and greatly reduce the time and cost associated with collection of fares, tracking of fare data, and accounting.
There are three types of electronic fare media:
Bar Coded Cards – Similar to technology employed in the retail industry, each bar coded ticket is labeled with specific data about the rider and fare. A bar code reader/scanner for each vehicle and costs on the order of $1,000 each. The base system which includes a computer and printer costs around $4,500. This is a relatively low cost method for transit systems to implement electronic fare media, automatically record trips, and generate operations and billing invoices.
Magnetic Stripe Cards - These cards are paper or plastic tickets with a magnetic stripe for storing information. As an example, the BART system in the Bay Area uses paper magnetic farecards. There are two basic types: read-only swipe cards and read-write stored value cards. Read-only cards allow for automatic determination of the validity of an unlimited-ride pass. Read-write cards used in conjunction with a Ticket Processing Unit (TPU) can determine the validity of a multi-ride card or stored value card and deduct the necessary ride or value. Some units are able to print the remaining value on the card. Read-write cards can also be encoded with the information needed to serve as an “electronic transfer slip.” An “electronic purse” is another function of the magnetic stripe, where the stored value on the card can also be used to make small purchases from cooperating merchants.
Smart Cards - A smart card is a type of fare medium that resembles a credit card with an embedded computer chip. Two types of smart cards exist: contact and contactless “proximity” cards. Contact cards must be physically swiped or fed through a card reader, whereas, contactless cards only need to be held within an inch or two of the card reader allowing for a speedier processing time. In fact, contactless cards do not even need to be removed from a wallet or purse to function properly. A
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 166 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
contactless smart card system potentially has lower maintenance costs because there are no moving parts needed to push the card through. In addition to the capabilities of the magnetic farecards, smart cards offer greater data processing capabilities and there is a move toward potential joint arrangements between the transit and banking industries using smart cards.
The farebox is the center of a fare management system. An electronic farebox generally includes the following features:
Magnetic swipe pass reader Passenger display Integration with passenger processing Interface with smart cards A ticket processing unit which can read and re-encode magnetic tickets or smart cards, or issue a magnetic transfer, daypass, or other agreed-upon document from an internal supply of blank unencoded stock Electronic cashbox door lock Silent alarm
More advanced electronic fareboxes include some or all of these additional features:
Validate coins and bills and return those that are not acceptable to the system Accept, validate and, if necessary, re-encode magnetic thin card fare documents Optionally accept and process credit cards and Employer ID cards Print, encode, and issue a magnetic transfer, daypass, or other agreed-upon documents from an internal supply of blank unencoded stock Provide change (or an electronic “change card” for future use) for fare overpayment Optional interface to destination/next stop electronic signs/audio enunciator system, GPS, passenger counters, and CAD/AVL systems Driver control unit High security dual port cashbox with built-in electronic identification system
Pros and Cons for EDCTA: The primary advantage of an electronic farebox for EDCTA would be the data management possibilities. An electronic farebox can record the number of boarding passengers by type, total passes, stored value cards, etc. Route/Run summary reports can be initiated by the driver using the driver keypad to create a record that summarizes all fare transactions since the last route/run request. Stored ride/stored value cards could be an alternative to multiple ticket booklets. Passengers could purchase either 10-ride, 20-ride, and 40-ride passes or a specified dollar amount worth of rides. These passes would be magnetic-striped farecards or smart cards, originally encoded by a ticket printing and encoding machine and typically sold off the bus. Electronic fareboxes can also issue and process transfers automatically. Another benefit of electronic fareboxes is that they could streamline the ticket purchase process for social service agencies. Some electronic fareboxes have the capability to accept “post billing period passes” for different programs. Using a ticket printing encoding machine, a batch of pre-encoded tickets valid for a specified period of time (say, one year) could be delivered to the various social service agencies and distributed to the clients. When the ticket is inserted into the magnetic card reader, the farebox reads the ticket and records the serial number, time of use, bus, and route. This data is then uploaded to the data system so an invoice report for the Social Service agencies can be generated.
Drawbacks of the electronic farebox include: delays associated with difficulty feeding magnetic fare cards through the machine, particularly if the card is wet, additional maintenance required and, of course, the cost. Depending on the type of unit, an electronic farebox (without the capability to interface with smart cards) may cost around $14,000 per unit. If magnetic fare media is used an additional $17,000
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 167
would be required for each ticket printing/encoding machine purchased. (Costs associated with smart cards are discussed below). Implementation of an electronic fare management system may also require modification of the cash counting office to accommodate larger cashboxes and the installation and maintenance of fareboxes.
Universal Fare Card for Sacramento Region
In 2007, the SACOG conducted a study to determine the feasibility of a universal fare card for the 14 transit agencies which serve the greater Sacramento region. The study recommends implementing the following strategies:
A regional contactless smart card that would be accepted by all transit agencies. The card would be reusable and passengers should be able to add value to the card at retail outlets and agency offices or link the smart card directly to a bank account.
The following equipment would need to be installed in each transit agency vehicle: MDTs, smart card readers (this could be interfaced with an electronic validating farebox, a stand-alone unit mounted to the vehicle or a hand-held device) and wireless communications system that can upload/download data between the smart card reader and a yard-based computer.
In order to issue the smart cards and process transactions, each transit agency would need to be equipped with a smart card printer/encoder, digital camera (for ID photos), and a credit/debit card processor.
Retail outlets for transit passes and tickets would need to be outfit with a point of sale terminal for the regional smart card.
A central manager or “regional center” would be required to assist with the reconciliation of revenues between the various transit agencies, purchase of materials, system maintenance and parts inventory, customer service and employee training and on-going support. Either one of the participating agencies or an independent third party could fill this role.
A central website would be established and maintained by the central manager. The website would perform the following functions:
- Purchase of a new smart card - Register a new or existing smart card - One-time reload of a smart card, using a credit card for payment (reload to be performed automatically by smart card reader on bus or rail system within 48 hours) - Set up automatic reload (“autoload”) of smart card by registering card and linking it to a credit card or bank account - Review status, history and remaining value of an individual’s registered smart card; revise autoload parameters - Report lost, stolen or destroyed smart card to hotlist it and request a replacement - For administrators of employer-based transit benefit programs, manage and review smart card accounts of employer and participating employees
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 168 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
- Provide answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) and contact information for customer assistance and service
Implementation of a regional smart card would provide multiple benefits for passengers and transit agencies:
The primary benefit to the El Dorado County passenger is that a “seamless” transit trip could be provided from Placerville to Sacramento on EDCTA, light rail, and other transit services as only one type of fare media would be required for the whole trip.
Employers or social service agencies that currently purchase transit passes for employees would be able to purchase a block of limited use pre-encoded smart cards and be billed electronically for actual trips periodically.
In addition to only needing one card to access all transit systems in the Sacramento region, the regional smart card provides the passenger with multiple fare payment options. Value can be added to smart cards at retail outlets, an automated phone system or through the website. Additionally the passenger can set up a recurring autoload account that automatically adds value to the card based upon criteria set by the individual.
Data tracking possibilities such as summary reports of fare types (passes, transfers, disabled riders, social service client, student etc.) would be helpful to operations management and reduce the need for driver data compilation.
The Feasibility Study estimates that the entire project will cost $8.2 million (including 20% contingency) to implement. This number will fluctuate depending on the number of agencies involved and type of equipment purchased. In addition to capital costs, the annual cost of collecting and processing fares increases in the range of $1.5 - $2.0 million for the region overall, after adjusting for expected reductions in lost revenue due to an electronic system and less fare abuse. Although each agency will see a decrease in their in-house expenses and an improvement in revenues, these reductions do not offset the costs associated with the new regional center.
Proposition 1B funding has been secured by SACOG to cover initial capital costs for all participating agencies. Project implementation is planned to begin in FY 2009-2010. Transit staff recommended that EDCTA participate in the initial procurement and implementation of equipment for 26 commuter routes vehicles only with possible procurement of equipment for the remaining fixed-route vehicles in the future. EDCTA staff estimate the capital costs of the project to be $282,000, or $10,850 per vehicle. Annual operating costs incurred by the project will run about $36,000 per year.
Solar Energy Arrays
Many public entities have integrated alternative technologies such as solar power into their facilities and operations. The City of Vacaville has installed solar arrays on the City Hall and at the Bella Vista Park- and-Ride lot which produces electricity for city electric powered vehicles. In sunny California, large buildings or structures such as a covered bus parking or maintenance facility would provide a good location for solar panels. The EDCTA yard receives abundant sun and could be outfit with covered parking and solar panels in order to reduce the agency’s carbon footprint.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 169
Advantages of APTS for El Dorado County Transit Authority
EDCTA appears to be on track to implement smart card readers for the commuter services, and electronic fareboxes will not provide significantly greater data collection/processing options than smart card readers. As this is seen as the primary benefit of an electronic farebox for EDCTA, the cost of implementing electronic fareboxes does not outweigh the benefits. The remainder of the EDCTA system is not of sufficient size to make electronic fareboxes cost-effective.
MDTs offer enhanced communication and transit performance tracking tools on top of smart card reader benefits that would be helpful for EDCTA at a smaller cost than electronic fareboxes. This technology would be particularly useful in managing the local routes to improve efficiency and on- time performance.
Future procurement of AVL and GIS systems to assist EDCTA with long-term planning and operations management of DAR system could be beneficial in the long-term, particularly as AVL becomes more widely used in rural transit systems and costs are reduced.
As the system grows in response to growth in the community, or as the cost and dependability of these technologies improves, EDCTA should carefully consider further investment in APTS systems as a means of improving service quality while also increasing service effectiveness.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 170 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Chapter 8 Institutional and Management Alternatives
CONTRACTING FOR TRANSIT SERVICES
In an effort to reduce costs and maximize resources, many transit agencies enter into a contract to operate all of some transit services with a private transportation company. This is seen as particularly useful when beginning new transit services. Typically the transit agency will provide vehicles and general oversight while the contractor provides drivers, dispatchers, vehicle storage, maintenance and day to day operations management. Transit contractors located near and around El Dorado County include MV Transportation and Paratransit Inc. in Sacramento, and First Transit (formerly Laidlaw Transit) in Roseville, California.
The primary advantage of contracting for transit services is cost reduction. Payments to the contractor are usually based on a set dollar amount per unit such as revenue vehicle service hours. This method gives the contractor the incentive to control costs. Contracting can be particularly beneficial for small transit systems which have limited staff. Not only are drivers and operations management provided but the contractor is responsible for worker’s compensation, employee benefits, and retirement programs. The major disadvantage of contracting for transit services is that the transit manager has less control over daily operations which in turn can have an effect on service quality. High employee turnover can result from poor contractor personnel management and situations over which the transit manager has little or no control.
Two of El Dorado Transit’s services could potentially benefit from contracting out to a third party, namely, potential new service to El Dorado Hills and DAR:
EDCTA’s facility in Diamond Springs is 20 miles one-way from El Dorado Hills. If the contractor were able to base operations out of El Dorado Hills, “deadheading” would be reduced significantly. Using a contractor to implement a new service would eliminate the need to hire new drivers and not significantly add to the duties of the operations manager. Operating costs incurred by the new service would be limited to the predetermined contract operating costs.
EDCTA’s DAR system currently requires extensive system resources. Contracting for this service could free up dispatcher time to concentrate on other EDCTA services or assist with local route deviations that may alleviate some of DAR’s burden. DAR requires a subsidy of $1.3 million or 33.5 percent of the subsidy required to operate all EDCTA services. In FY 2006/07 DAR operated 14,042 vehicle service hours. This equates to a cost of $97.61 per vehicle service hour. Other transit contracts for demand response and fixed-route services in rural areas are approximately $60 - $70 per vehicle service hour. This provides a reasonable financial argument for contracting with a private operator for DAR services.
There are other factors that merit evaluation beyond simply cost, including the following:
By using a contractor, EDCTA would be giving up a substantial amount of direct control over service quality factors. While some factors, such as response time, driver training, and in-vehicle travel time can be defined in a contract, DAR service is a personal one-on-one service that is hard to codify in contract language. Given the high level of service currently provided by EDCTA staff, the transition to a contractor can be expected to result in passenger complaints.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 171
There may be labor law issues associated with the replacement of a current service operated with public employees with a contracted service regarding the DAR program. In particular, Section 13(C) of the Federal Transit Act grants certain protections and rights to employees that have their conditions of employment “worsened” as part of programs using federal transit funds (like EDCTA).
Splitting these services from the remainder of EDCTA services could reduce the ability to shift or share resources. For instance, at present DAR vehicles can be used to serve fixed-route passengers that miss their connections. Timing connections between an El Dorado Hills local route and commuter services would also be an important element of an El Dorado Hills service. Both of these strategies would be more difficult if a separate contractor’s dispatcher would need to be included in the process.
A substantial level of administrative resources would still be required on the part of EDCTA with contracted service. EDCTA staff would remain responsible for designing, marketing, and monitoring the service, and addressing passenger complaints. A rule of thumb in the transit industry is that 10 percent of a service contract cost needs to be budgeted for administration.
Making service changes could also be complicated by the need to make changes in the associated service contract. This may be a particular issue regarding an El Dorado Hills service.
If contracting is pursued, there are several good sources of strategies to ensure a successful contracting arrangement. For instance, TRB Special Report 258, Contracting for Bus and Demand Responsive Transit Services lists suggestions about contracting from various transit managers:
Outline all of the duties and roles of all parties in the contract. Establish a clear mechanism for making changes in contract agreements, and define all expectations with respect to service quality.
Include penalty clauses and rewards in contracts to motivate good performance.
Routinely monitor contractor performance and provide the contractor with candid and frequent feedback.
Maintain an open and collaborative relationship with the contractor.
Overall, contracting for a new El Dorado Hills service appears to be the most feasible opportunity for EDCTA.
GREATER SACRAMENTO REGIONAL COMMUTER TRANSIT FUNDING WORKSHOPS
El Dorado County Transit Authority, as the transit provider for Western El Dorado County, is only one of numerous jurisdictions that expend significant funding for public transit services into downtown Sacramento. In addition, commuter transit services are provided by the City of Elk Grove, Fairfield/Suisun Transit System, Yolo County Transit Authority, Yuba Sutter Transit Authority, Placer County, and the City of Roseville. These services provide substantial public benefits to both ends of the commute trip. The “residential” jurisdictions gain benefits through improved access to employment, reduced traffic and air emissions, and an improved quality of life for commuting residents. The central Sacramento area also gains benefits through reduced traffic and associated environmental impacts both in downtown as well as on access roadways, reduced parking demand, and improved access to a quality workforce. To date, however, none of the outlying jurisdictions providing these benefits to the core area
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 172 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
receive any financial support for their transit services. Instead, all of the costs are borne by the outlying jurisdictions. As costs for public transit increase faster than growth in revenues, these programs have the potential to over time reduce the ability to fund other elements of the individual transit programs, such as local transit services.
Unfortunately, Sac RT is in the process of implementing service reductions. In response to a $1.6 million budget gap in the adopted FY 2008 budget, Sac RT is discontinuing or modifying 18 routes or a $1.3 million reduction in bus service. The Sac RT budget shortfall is a direct result of $1.3 billion dollar cut in public transportation funding at the state level. Therefore it is unlikely that Sac RT would have the financial ability to expand transit services into El Dorado County in the short-term.
Over the long-term, SACOG forecasts that employment opportunities in south/east Sacramento County and El Dorado County will double by 2032. As this occurs, serving reverse commuters will become increasingly important, and cost sharing between Sac RT, EDCTA, and other regional transit operators may be more plausible. Under this alternative, EDCTA would work with other jurisdictions throughout the region – possibly through the SACOG – to convene a series of workshops to define new and more equitable forms of funding for regional commuter services.
TRANSFER POLICY
Local Route Transfers
EDCTA’s current fare policy allows for free transfers between different local routes. A review of peer transit agencies shows that the majority of nearby small to medium sized transit systems do not charge for transfers between local services. Some larger transit agencies serving San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Santa Cruz, and Bakersfield do not provide transfer slips and therefore a transferring passenger must pay a second fare. Charging for transfers adds to the cost and confusion of boarding the bus and the requirements placed on the transit drivers. The current policy of providing free transfers should be continued.
As is common among transit agencies, EDCTA has an informal policy that transfer slips are only valid for transferring between different routes, and cannot be used for ongoing travel on the same route. This is to avoid the ability of a passenger to complete a round-trip while only paying a single fare. While this practice generally serves EDCTA well, there is a possibility that a passenger would be unable to complete a one way trip without having to pay two fares on the Diamond Springs route. The route is a large one- way loop, but the individual buses are interlined with other routes at the Missouri Flat Transfer Center. As a result, a passenger traveling from a point on the Diamond Springs route prior to Missouri Flat and traveling to a point on the same route after Missouri Flat must transfer between vehicles on the same route. In the past, some passengers have been charged twice for a one-way fare in this case. More recently, transfer slips have been issued and marked as “continuous” by the drivers in order to allow the passenger to continue his/her trip without double payment.
This routing configuration benefits the transit system, as it allows buses to be more efficiently used to operate the routes. As it is not appropriate for a passenger to have to pay an additional fare due to this routing strategy, one option would be to establish a formal transfer policy that transfers are not valid for travel on the same route and add an exception to the fare policy to allow the use of a transfer issued on the Diamond Springs Route to be used on this same route, so long as it is used within an hour of issuance. While there is a small chance that an individual rider might use this exception to complete a quick (25 minute or less) trip to destination close to the Transfer Station, it is appropriate in this case to err on the side of providing equitable fares to all passengers.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 173
Sac RT Transfer Agreement
As per the existing transfer agreement with Sac RT (discussed in Chapter 3), Los Rios Community College Students and CSUS students can ride the EDCTA commuter routes at a discount and the local routes fare free, and employees of both transit agencies are allowed to ride free on the partner transit system with a valid employee badge. The underlying reason for this arrangement was to promote the use of public transit. However, the benefits of this agreement have been very one sided. Nearly 1,140 free trips were provided to Sac RT employees in FY 2006/07 (Table 9) whereas less than 5 trips were made on Sac RT by EDCTA employees. This accounts for approximately $4,500 in potential fare revenue. Although a similar number of trips were provided for students, students pay a portion of the commuter fare so the revenue loss is less significant. EDCTA staff has been authorized to negotiate a new transfer agreement with Sac RT that eliminates free trips for employees. Additionally, EDCTA is working with the SACOG and several transit operators on the feasibility of a universal fare card for the region. A new transfer agreement would be developed if EDCTA opts to participate in a universal fare card program.
SAFETY AND SECURITY
Since the 2001 terrorist attacks, safety, and security have become an increasingly important issue. Transit organizations such as EDCTA can play an important part in this effort, both in terms of providing a secure environment for bus passengers as well as being a partner in overall public safety efforts.
Transit Safety
Transit passenger safety can be enhanced through the following steps:
Staff training in transit security workshops.
Review of recent accidents and incidents.
Transit passenger facilities should be developed or reviewed to ensure that clear sight lines are provided.
Procedures should be established for reporting and tracking passenger and traffic incidents. The EDCTA staff should follow-up on any matters that need to be resolved.
A good accident prevention program is another important safety element for a transit system. A properly designed accident prevention program will likely not cost money but rather save money. For the most part, EDCTA recorded accidents since 2004 have been property damage only accidents, and EDCTA has an established safety awards program. Nonetheless, a positive safety record does not ensure safety success in the future without continued vigilance. In March of 2007, a consultant from the California Transit Insurance Pool (CalTIP) developed a System Safety Program Plan (SSPP) for El Dorado Transit. Basic components of the “Safety Management” portion are:
EDCTA’s operations manager is the transit system’s safety advisor who oversees the implementation, maintenance, and update of the transit system safety program.
EDCTA’s safety policy is, “No function of the El Dorado County Transit Authority is so critical as to justify or require a compromise of safety.” The policy should be distributed to all employees and posted in visible locations.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 174 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Follow a proactive approach which identifies hazards early in the process so that appropriate recommendations for design and/or operation modifications necessary to ensure safety can be made. The EDCTA driver’s handbook includes a list of common accidents and defensive driving tips (pages 23-25). This should be reviewed and updated over time.
Examine previous accident data closely to identify potential hazards, improve vehicle procurement, improve employee selection, and improve operations and transit safety.
Implement a system of measurement and evaluation. This includes a traffic accident frequency rate and categorizing different types of accidents.
Communicating important safety information between management, employees, and transit users is important. Open door policies, suggestion programs, and public forums assist with this element.
EDCTA should continue to distribute and carry out the elements of the Safety Management Plan.
Public Security/Emergency Preparedness
Public safety and security can be enhanced by a public transit program when emergency evacuation and transportation is required in response to a natural disaster or terrorist attack. El Dorado County updated its Emergency Operations Plan in 2006. The plan outlines the organizational framework for the initial response to a disaster situation and discusses roles and responsibilities of initial response agencies and the Emergency Management Division of the County. Specific guidelines on how to involve El Dorado Transit are not included in the plan. EDCTA has been called upon in the past by the Office of Emergency Services to assist with evacuations, and staff has responded with sufficient resources quickly. At this time, there is no official Memorandum of Understanding or policy which outlines procedures for coordination between the County Office of Emergency Services and EDCTA. FTA developed a recommended practice list for emergency response in the document Disaster Response and Recovery Resource for Transit Agencies, (August, 2006). The following practices would benefit El Dorado County. Although some of these recommended practices are also included in CalTIP’s SSPP “Security Program,” the FTA document provides a more thorough list of emergency preparedness suggestions.
Develop an Emergency Management Plan that includes a detailed key personnel contact list, checklists by functional area of actions to be undertaken, standard operating procedures, command structure, and communications protocol in the event of a disaster. The plan should also include bus parking and deployment strategies specific to a storm or other emergency event. As communication systems may be disrupted, the transit agency should create hard copies of the plan, protocols, and contact information.
Ensuring that sufficient equipment and supplies such as fuel, batteries, and electrical generators is essential.
Pre-establish evacuation routes and bus assignments in advance of a storm or emergency event.
Memorandums of Agreement or Mutual Aid Agreements should be developed with other key agencies in the region that formalize and authorize assistance during an incident and help to facilitate financial reimbursement. In the case of EDCTA, transit staff should develop a formal agreement with the County Office of Emergency Services and ensure that the County has up to date contact information for EDCTA personnel.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 175
Coordination with local school districts and human service transportation providers during an emergency event can add to the available pool of resources. Coordination with local social service agencies also assists with efficient evacuation of persons with special needs. EDCTA’s scheduling software and experience with ADA individuals makes EDCTA especially qualified to assist with the evacuation of persons with special needs. It would be advisable to develop a voluntary registry of such persons so that passengers can be notified and scheduling performed in advance.
Transit policy suspension – In times of emergencies, EDCTA should consider establishing a no-fare policy and allow pets on EDCTA vehicles.
Shelter management practices – This includes establishing a contact person at each shelter who focuses on the transportation needs of that shelter including meeting arriving buses, escorting transported passengers, and arranging for return trips. An EDCTA staff member may serve in this role.
Education and training is critical to emergency preparedness. Employees should be trained on emergency procedures and management should clarify the expectations and duties of their employees during an emergency event. Transit agency employees should be encouraged to develop emergency preparedness plans with their own families so that they may be free to perform their emergency response duties. Passengers should be provided specific directions on how to access transportation services during an emergency.
Mock training drills should be performed periodically.
Compensation polices – EDCTA should consider compensating transit employees who respond to an emergency event.
EDCTC can also play a role in security/disaster planning by directing funding towards projects which may help prevent, mitigate or monitor a security incident. Examples of such projects include:
Coordinate drills and exercises among transportation providers to practice emergency plans
Hazardous route planning
Secure management of data and information on transportation system vulnerabilities
Funding communications systems and other technology to speed response to incident
Coordinating public information dissemination strategies
MARKETING IMPROVEMENTS
Marketing in its broadest context should be viewed as a management philosophy focusing on identifying and satisfying customers’ wants and needs. The basic premises of successful marketing are providing the right product or service, offering it at the right price, and adequately promoting or communicating the existence and appropriateness of the product or service to potential customers. Unfortunately, the word “marketing” is associated only with the advertising and promotional efforts that accompany “selling” the product or service to a customer. Instead, such promotional efforts are only a part of an overall marketing process. Without a properly designed and developed product or service offered at the right price, the expenditure of promotional monies is often ill-advised.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 176 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Obviously, the marketing program must fit within budgetary limitations of any organization. According to the American Public Transit Association, transit providers typically budget between 0.75 and 3.0 percent of their gross budget on marketing promotions (excluding salaries), with the majority around 2 percent. Although this is slightly less than most private sector businesses, public sector organizations can rely more heavily on media support for their public relations programs.
Improve Service Quality
A key precept of marketing is to provide a quality “product.” In the case of public transit, a reputation for providing quality service encourages increased ridership and public support for transit. Tax-based funding and fares are more acceptable when service quality is high. A key marketing effort, therefore, is to improve on-time performance, passenger amenities, and reduce in-vehicle travel time. Solving these problems and subsequently improving the public perception of EDCTA’s quality of service through marketing is essential. The following service monitoring techniques should be ongoing:
On-Time Performance – Comprehensive records of on-time performance are useful in determining proper scheduling and ensuring quality service. At a minimum, transit supervisors should be required to do a standardized observance of on-time performance as part of their service checks. This data should be entered into spreadsheets to allow tracking. In addition, on-time performance surveys should be conducted at least twice per year.
Annual Passenger Survey – On-board passenger surveys are a vital source of planning information regarding the ridership and the purpose of their trip-making. In addition, surveys are the single best way to gain “feedback” regarding the service. Funding for annual onboard surveys should be a priority. Questions that should be addressed in the annual passenger survey include the following:
- Day and date that the survey is completed
- Time at which the survey is completed
- Route that the passenger is traveling
- Passenger gender
- Passenger age
- Whether the passenger is disabled, and if so, the type of disability
- Origin of trip (major intersection near trip origin) and trip destination (major intersection near trip destination)
- Purpose of trip, typically categorized as work, shopping, recreational, social, educational, other
- Rating of the transit service (poor, fair, good, very good, excellent)
- Suggestions for improvements in transit service
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 177
Boarding and Alighting Counts – It is worthwhile, on at least an annual or biannual basis, to conduct a day-long count for boarding and alighting by stop for each of the services operated. There are a number of useful pieces of information that can be gleaned from a boarding and alighting count:
- Identify the most important stops
- Rank bus stops for potential passenger amenities, such as shelters or benches
- Identify the section along the route where the maximum load occurs. This information is very important in identifying the appropriate vehicle size for the service, as well as to track the service quality issues, such as passenger overcrowding.
Past and Ongoing El Dorado County Transit Authority Marketing Efforts
In 2006, Selena Barlow Transit Marketing, LLC conducted a Market Assessment and Marketing Plan for El Dorado Transit. Out of a long list of recommended marketing strategies, EDCTA has implemented the majority of marketing plan elements. Many of the recommendations in the marketing plan were service alternatives which have either been addressed in this document or are not feasible at this time. The following lists the remaining incomplete marketing plan elements which are feasible to complete:
Relocate bus shelter at Marshall Hospital
Improve bus stop signage systemwide (75 percent complete)
Make telephone information easier to access
Use El Dorado Transit brand more consistently and prominently on all vehicles, signs, facilities, and materials (50 percent complete)
Testimonial advertising campaign
Outreach to “gatekeepers,” such as social service program managers (50 percent complete)
Form marketing partnerships with Raley's and other prominent County retailers
Working in partnerships with social service providers and other gatekeepers to increase communications with the Latino community
Encourage trial riderships in partnership with senior complexes (65 percent complete)
Improve communications value of commuter vehicles and Park-and-Ride lots
A marketing budget of $50,000 was recommended for FY 2007/08, $60,000 for FY 2008/09 and 2 percent of the Budget for FY 2009/10.
Marketing for New Services
As noted in the Market Assessment and Marketing Plan, one aspect of marketing that could be particularly effective is to increase the awareness of residents to any service changes before they are implemented. This increased awareness would translate into higher demand for transit services. Marketing campaigns for the IPC Service included: “Free Fridays” for six months,
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 178 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
extensive outreach efforts at transit oriented fairs and events, inclusion of the IPC in the Cure4theCommute campaign and targeted marketing at Folsom Lake College and the FTB Campus in Rancho Cordova. Despite these extensive marketing efforts, the IPC has seen low ridership during its first year of operation. As the IPC has direct transfers to Sac RT light rail, commuters and students have been the primary target market for this service. The IPC also serves the Kaiser campus in Folsom and could be an important transit link for transit dependent El Dorado County residents requiring transportation to Sacramento during the middle of the day. While continuing to attend outreach events in Sacramento and at Folsom Lake College, EDCTA should expand marketing efforts for the IPC to the transit dependent population in Placerville.
The IPC should also be more intensively marketed to existing EDCTA Commuter Service riders. Commuter riders have frequently noted that the lack of mid-day Commuter Service runs discourages ridership, as passengers feel that their flexibility to travel or their ability to return to El Dorado County unexpectedly is limited. The fact that the IPC provides (along with Light Rail) service every two hours over the working day from Sacramento back to El Dorado County should be marketed to commuter riders, including a notation on the commuter bus schedules.
Joint Marketing with Connecting Transit Services
As discussed above, a key marketing advantage of EDCTA is the many connections possible with other transit services. EDCTA could capitalize on this advantage by taking the lead in developing a US 50 Corridor transit rider guide, detailing the system as well as the Folsom Stage and Sac RT connections. This map would be displayed on vehicles, websites, and facilities of all of the above transit services.
Schedule Information at Bus Stops
One marketing strategy which was highlighted as part of the public comment process is posting schedules at major bus stops. The major benefit from this strategy is that existing passengers and potential passengers would be well informed and provided with easy access to transit information. The disadvantage of posting schedules is that routes and schedules can change frequently. In addition to reprinting costs, additional staff time would be required to keep schedule information at bus stops up to date. Vandalism is another factor which should be considered.
There are various methods of displaying transit schedules at bus stops. The least expensive method which is somewhat resilient to weather and vandalism is placing the schedule underneath a plexiglass protector inside the shelter or below the bus stop sign post. This would cost approximately $100 per stop.
EDCTA existing policy is to post schedules in shelters and at “high traffic” stops that are served by at least two or more local or commuter routes. At present, 29 stops display schedule information. One common rule of thumb is to post schedules at all time points. As EDCTA schedules list time points for every non-request bus stop, posting schedules at every bus stop could become expensive and time consuming when route adjustments are made. On average it may take at least one full day of staff time to update schedules at all bus stops. A more appropriate method of determining where to display schedule information would be review boarding activity by stop for the local routes and post schedules at stops with five or more average weekday boardings. Table 23 shows that at least five daily boardings were recorded at the following stops with no posted schedules. Stops marked with an “S” are already included in the capital plan as needing a shelter as per the goals set forth in Chapter 5. The remaining stops listed warrant a bench as well.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 179
Child Development (FLC) (S) MORE Raley’s (Placerville Dr.) (S) Cold Springs Dental Safeway (Cameron Park Place) (S) Eskaton Lincoln Manor Pleasant Valley/Church Street (S) Carson/Larsen Union Mine High School (S) Lake Oaks/Patterson Big Lots (Fair Lane)
As stops with five or more average weekday boardings account for 85 percent of total boarding activity on the local routes, it is not cost efficient to post schedules at more stops than those listed above. A total of 12 schedule holders would be required, costing around $1,200. It should be noted that schedules are provided at 20 additional local stops and 4 Park-and-Ride lots.
EDCTA Route Signage
There are 20 designated EDCTA commuter stops in downtown Sacramento and 6 Park-and-Ride stops. The 2006 Marketing Study recommended improving signage at the Park-and-Ride lots as well as adding way-finding signage near the Park-and-Ride lots as they were deemed “invisible” to a potential new user. The plan recommended that enhanced information displays at the Park-and-Ride lots include commuter schedule information. A new sign may cost on the order of $500 totaling $3,000 for one directional sign at each Park-and-Ride and $200 for schedule holders.
A review of the EDCTA bus sign inventory shows that all Commuter Route stops are signed and that 14 out of 106 local route stops are not signed. Eight of these unsigned stops are located in rural areas along the Grizzly Flat or South County Route. In many cases, these unsigned stops would be difficult to sign due to space issues or underground utilities. EDCTA staff have also noted that many of the Grizzly Flat stops are informal pick up and drop off locations that are understood between driver and passenger. Nevertheless, signing stops where feasible is a good standard practice to market the transit service to non- riders and to minimize issues between drivers and passengers.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 180 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Chapter 9 Financial Alternatives
The crux of any issue regarding the provision of public service is the matter of funding. Provision of a sustainable, permanent funding source has proven to be the single greatest determinant in the success or failure of transit service.
Experience with transit systems outside of large urban areas underscores the critical importance of a secure source or sources of local funding if the long-term viability of transit service is to be assured. Transit services dependent on annual appropriations and informal agreements suffer in the following manners:
Passengers are not sure from one year to the next if service will be provided. As a result, potential passengers may opt to purchase a first or second car, rather than rely on the continued availability of transit service.
Transit drivers are also not sure of having a long-term position. As a result, a transit system may suffer from high turnover, low morale, and a resulting high accident rate.
The lack of a dependable source of financial support inhibits investment in both vehicles and facilities. Public agencies are less likely to enter into cooperative agreements if the long-term survival of the transit organization is in doubt.
To provide high-quality transit service and to become a well-established part of the community, a dependable source of funding is essential. Factors which must be carefully considered in evaluating financial alternatives include the following:
- It must be equitable – the costs of transit service to various segments of the population must correspond with the benefits they accrue.
- Collection of tax funds must be efficient.
- It must be sustainable – the ability to confidently forecast future revenues is vital in making correct decisions regarding capital investments such as vehicles and facilities.
- It must be acceptable to the public.
A wide number of potential transit funding sources are available, particularly within California. The following discussion provides an overview of these programs. This discussion will be developed in greater detail as analysis of operating and capital alternatives yield estimates of total future funding requirements.
FEDERAL TRANSIT FUNDING SOURCES
FTA Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program
A mainstay of transit funding for smaller cities across the country is the FTA’s Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program. These funds are provided to urbanized areas (as identified by the Census Bureau) with a population of 50,000 or more, and are for use throughout the urbanized area. As El Dorado Hills is
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 181
included in the Sacramento Urbanized Area, EDCTA is eligible for FTA Section 5307 funds for services in El Dorado Hills. For FTA FY 2007/08 (October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008), a total of $19 million is available to the Sacramento Urbanized Area. The El Dorado County Regional Transportation Plan estimates that EDCTA will receive about $400,000 annually from this program.
FTA Section 5309 Capital Program
These grants are split into three categories: New Starts, Fixed Guideway Modernization, and Bus and Bus Facilities. Typically, an intensive lobbying effort is necessary to receive a Section 5309 earmark. The “Small Starts” component of the New Starts program, which provides funding and oversight for projects seeking less than $75 million dollars in New Starts funds, was authorized for separate funding beginning in FY 2007 under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). If urbanized, a duly authorized recipient of FTA funds has to first program all of its Section 5307 funds before Section 5309 funds can be expended. In FTA FY 2007/08, $46 million was available statewide for bus and bus facilities projects. EDCTA has been allocated $1 million through this funding program for commuter buses in the past.
FTA Section 5310 Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program
FTA funds are also potentially available through the Section 5310 Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program (largely vehicles), which is administered by Caltrans. Until recently, recipients of Section 5310 funding were restricted to non-profit organizations; with passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and subsequent Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21), however, local governmental jurisdictions are also eligible for funding. FTA FY 2007-2008 apportionments totaled $12.4 million statewide. In the past, EDCTA has been awarded 5310 funds for fixed-route and DAR vans.
FTA Section 5311 Nonurbanized Area Formula Program
Federal transit funding for rural areas, such as El Dorado County, is currently provided through the FTA Section 5311 Nonurbanized Area Formula Program. In California, a 16.43 percent local match is required for capital programs and a 47.77 percent match for operating expenditures. Per FTA section 5319, only a 10 percent local match is required for capital projects used to provide access for bicycles to transit facilities, or to install racks or other equipment for transporting bicycles on transit vehicles. These funds, administered by Caltrans, are segmented into “apportioned” and “discretionary” programs. The bulk of the funds are apportioned directly to rural counties based on population levels. The remaining funds are distributed by Caltrans on a discretionary basis and are typically used for capital purposes. FTA Section 5311 funds budgeted for EDCTA operations in FY 2007/08 is approximately $200,000. Statewide, Section 5311 funds totaled nearly $20 million in FTA FY 2007/08.
FTA Section 5313(b) State Planning and Research Program
The FTA provides a total of approximately $10.8 million annually in funds to all the state departments of transportation for use in statewide planning projects and planning support in non-urbanized areas, as well as other research and demonstration projects. These funds are allocated to the states by population (with a minimum of 0.5 percent allocated to any one state), and require a 20 percent local match. This funding source is commonly used to fund transit plan studies.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 182 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
FTA Section 5308 Clean Fuels Grant Program
This is a discretionary grant program funded through SAFETEA-LU. The program has a two-fold purpose. First, the program was developed to assist non-attainment and maintenance areas in achieving or maintaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone and carbon monoxide (CO). Second, the program supports emerging clean fuel and advanced propulsion technologies for transit buses and markets for those technologies. Recipients must be eligible to receive FTA 5307 funding and be classified as a maintenance or non-attainment are for ozone and CO. Currently there are no funds available to distribute for this program.
FTA Section 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute Program (JARC)
The JARC grant program assists states and localities in developing new or expanded transportation services that connect welfare recipients and other low income persons to jobs and other employment related services. Job Access projects are targeted at developing new or expanded transportation services such as shuttles, vanpools, new bus routes, connector services to mass transit, and guaranteed ride home programs for welfare recipients and low income persons. Reverse Commute projects provide transportation services to suburban employment centers from urban, rural and other suburban locations for all populations. Under SAFETEA-LU the JARC program is a formula program and allocation is based on the number of low income persons. States and designated recipients must select grantees competitively. SACOG is a designated recipient and was eligible for $775,462 in FY 2007/08 for subrecipients in the Sacramento Urbanized Area. Non-urbanized areas can apply for grants through the state. Estimated funding available for rural projects in FY 2007/08 in California is $2.7 million. As for EDCTA services, JARC funding would be available for the IPC service. A JARC applicant must also have a Coordinated Human Services Transportation plan. An (80/20 match) is required for capital projects, and at least a 50 percent (50/50 match) of projects for operating assistance.
FTA Section 5317 New Freedom Program
This new program under SAFETEA-LU provides formula funding for “new” public transportation services beyond those required by ADA for persons with disabilities. The idea behind the program is to help communities provide transportation services beyond those required by ADA and to help people with disabilities participate more fully in the workforce and in community life. Eligible projects include voucher programs and volunteer driver programs. Funds are apportioned to the individual states based on the disabled population, and only 20 percent is available to non-urbanized areas. To be eligible for funding, New Freedom projects in urbanized areas must be included in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan prepared and approved by the metropolitan planning organization (MPO), the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) approved jointly by the MPO and the Governor, and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) developed by a State and jointly approved by FTA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Projects outside urbanized areas must be included in, or be consistent with the Statewide Long-Range Transportation Plan, as developed by the state, and must be included in the STIP. As with the JARC program, projects must be derived from the Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan. An (80/20 match) is required for capital projects, and at least a 50 percent (50/50 match) of projects for operating assistance. The maximum per project per year grant award is $125,000.
Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) SAFETEA-LU Funding
A strong source of funding for many transit services across the country has been provided by the Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) program, authorized through SAFETEA-LU. This funding is
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 183
available to regions that are not in compliance with federal air quality standards regarding ozone or carbon monoxide. As El Dorado County is not in attainment for these standards, CMAQ funding is available for local services.
STATE TRANSIT FUNDING SOURCES
Transportation Development Act Local Transportation Funding (LTF)
A mainstay of funding for transit programs in California is provided by the Transportation Development Act (TDA). The major portion of TDA funds are provided through the Local Transportation Fund (LTF). These funds are generated by a 1/4 cent statewide sales tax, returned to the county of origin. The returned funds must be spent for the following purposes:
Two percent must be provided for bicycle facilities (barring certain findings).
The remaining funds must be spent for transit and paratransit purposes, unless the Transportation Commission finds that no unmet transit needs exist that can be reasonably met.
If a finding of no unmet needs that are reasonable to meet is made, remaining funds can be spent on roadway construction and maintenance purposes.
TDA-LTF funds allocated to the EDCTA program in FY 2006/07 totaled $3.7 million, and typically no TDA funds are allocated to streets and roads. The El Dorado County RTP assumes that sales tax revenues will grow at three percent per year. However, actual County sales tax revenues for the beginning of FY 2007/08 are 2.72 percent less than the previous FY. In FY 2007/08, LTF funding is anticipated to decrease by 4 percent to $3.5 million Therefore, given the current economic climate, the LTF estimates in the RTP represent an optimistic short-term financial outlook for EDCTA.
State Transit Assistance (STA) Funds
In addition to LTF funding, the TDA includes a State Transit Assistance (STA) funding mechanism. The sales tax on gasoline is used to reimburse the state coffers for the impacts of the 1/4 cent sales tax used for LTF. Any remaining funds (or “spillover”) are available to the counties for local transportation purposes. FY 2007/08 STA funding allocated to the EDCTA was approximately $669,429.
Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA) Program
This program provides funding for projects that improve the safety and convenience for bicycle commuters. Local jurisdictions must have an adopted “Bicycle Transportation Plan” approved by Caltrans to be eligible for funding. Projects must conform to the requirements of Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000. Commuter bikeways are eligible. In FY 2005/06 EDCTA received $20,782 in BTA funds to replace the bike racks on all buses to hold 3 bikes instead of 2. In FY 2007/08 EDCTC will receive $615,000 for the construction of Class I and Class II bike paths in the County.
Proposition 1B (PTMISEA)
On November 7, 2006, California voters approved Proposition 1B, the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006, which authorized the issuance of $19.925 billion in general obligation bonds to invest in high-priority improvements to the state's surface transportation system and to finance strategies to improve air quality. Among the programs contained in Proposition 1B is the $3.6 billion Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 184 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Enhancement Account (PTMISEA). When appropriated by the Legislature, funds in the PTMISEA are to be used to fund various mass transportation projects, including rehabilitation, safety or modernization improvements, capital enhancements or expansion, rail transit improvement, bus rapid transit improvements, the acquisition of rolling stock, and other similar investments. The funds in the PTMISEA are to be dispersed according to the formula used to distribute funds in the State Transit Assistance Fund (STA). EDCTA will receive about $1.2 million in PTMISEA funds in FY 2007/08.
LOCAL TRANSIT FUNDING SOURCES
AB 2766 Vehicle Air Pollution Fees
California Assembly Bill 2766 allows local air quality management districts to level a $2 to $4 per year fee on vehicles registered in their district. These funds are to be applied to programs designed to reduce motor vehicle air pollution, as well as the planning, monitoring, enforcement, and technical study of these programs. Across the state, these funds have been used for local transit capital and operating programs. AB 2766 funds have been used to operate the fare free Apple Hill Shuttle and Fair Shuttle in El Dorado County.
Sales Tax
A sales tax election could be held with funds to go to transit service. Sales tax is the financial base for many transit services in the West. The required level of sales tax would depend upon the service alternative chosen. One advantage is that sales tax revenues are relatively stable and can be forecast with a high degree of confidence. In addition, sales tax can be collected efficiently and it allows the community to generate revenues from visitors to the area. This source would require a vote of the people to implement. In addition, a sales tax increase could be seen as inequitable to residents not served by transit. This disadvantage could be offset by the fact that sales taxes could be rebated to incorporated areas not served by transit. Transit services, moreover, would face competition from other services which may seek to gain financial support through sales tax.
Property Tax
The property tax is an additional feasible source of subsidy for transit services. This tax can be relatively efficiently collected. In addition, property tax tends to be progressive – those most able to pay are those that tend to be impacted. The availability of this funding source in the foreseeable future, however, is very doubtful in light of the traditional reluctance of voters to increase this tax. The ability for a property tax to pass in a general election will only occur when a majority of area residents feel transit service provides a benefit to them individually.
Traffic Mitigation Fees
Traffic mitigation fees are one-time charges on new developments to pay for required public facilities, and to mitigate impacts created by or reasonably related to development. There are a number of approaches to charging developers, however, in all cases, these fees must be clearly related to the costs incurred as a result of the development with a rational connection between fee and development type. Furthermore, fees cannot be used to correct existing problems or pay for improvements needed for existing development. A county may only levy such fees in the unincorporated area over which it has jurisdiction, while a city must levy fees within the city limits. Any fee program must have the cooperation of all jurisdictions affected. El Dorado Transit is included in the TIM fee program for the region.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 185
Approximately $500,000 is available for Park-and-Ride, right of way and/or construction in the later years of the program. Due to the slow down in housing construction it is likely that this funding will not be available during the five year scope of this SRTP.
Contract Revenues
Transit systems also often generate income through revenues associated with contracted services. EDCTA currently contracts with M.O.R.E. and other agencies to provide specialized transportation services. EDCTA should continue to evaluate requests for service as agencies in the region wish to expand access to their programs.
Advertising
One modest but important source of funding for many transit services is on-vehicle advertising. The largest portion of this potential is for exterior advertising, rather than interior “bus card” advertising. The potential funds generated by advertising placed with the vehicles is comparatively low. However, EDCTA recently entered into a new five year advertising agreement with Lamar Transit Advertising. Per the agreement Lamar will invest up to $225,000 in 15 new bus shelters in exchange for shelter and bus advertising. Additionally Lamar will give EDCTA a percentage of advertising revenue or a five year guaranteed payment as well as provide maintenance and repair of existing shelters.
INCREASED PASSENGER REVENUES
One option to increase funding would be to increase the passenger fares. This option is perceived as being equitable, in that the direct beneficiaries of transit service are required to pay. In addition, fares can be very flexible – they can be reduced for portions of the population (such as the elderly and handicapped) who are least able to pay. When the available supply of transit service is exceeded by demand, fares can ration service so those who most need the service (and are thus most willing to pay) are provided with service.
The major disadvantage associated with a fare increase is reduction of the attractiveness and convenience of transit service. If fares were raised, it is likely ridership would drop, possibly increasing the overall subsidy required to run the system. This, moreover, would affect those most in need of transit service – the low-income population who cannot afford a car.
A discussion of potential transit funding sources must include a look at fares. As fares make transit funding more equitable (those who directly benefit from the service pay at least part of the costs), a fare system has the advantage of increasing the political acceptability of transit. This advantage, however, does not consider the substantial benefits provided to others in the community such as commercial property owners who do not ride the system. In addition, by reducing the attractiveness of transit service, a fare policy works at cross purposes to many of the stated goals for transit with regard to increase in mobility and reduction of traffic and parking demand. Nonetheless, fare increases and changes to the existing fare structure over the long-term should be considered appropriate – particularly in the long-term – to account for the increasing costs of providing service.
Transit systems throughout cities and rural areas often struggle with the issue of establishing an appropriate, fair, and sustainable fare structure. Determining an appropriate fare structure not only satisfies the need to meet the minimum required farebox return ratio, but can also encourage passengers to use the service most appropriate to their needs. Setting fares too low creates the risk of not meeting mandated farebox ratios and bypassing an important support for transit, while setting fares too high can
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 186 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
discourage transit use, particularly for low income passengers who may be the most dependent on transit. The financial alternatives section reviews the current fare structure for El Dorado Transit through a comparison with similar California transit services, and evaluates alternative fare structures.
Since the last SRTP update in 2003, EDCTA has only raised fares on the commuter routes. The new fare policy was enacted in two increments (July 2004 and July 2005) and raised the base one-way fare from $3.00 to $4.00.
Potential Increase in DAR Fare
One alternative which has the potential to alleviate capacity issues while decreasing operating costs on the DAR system is to raise fares. DAR fares are usually set higher than fixed-route fares to reflect the fact that the service is more expensive to operate and is more specialized to the passenger’s needs. EDCTA general public DAR base fare is $3.00 per trip (for a single zone trip) and the base fare for an elderly/disabled passenger is $1.50 per trip. Table 47 presents a review of DAR fare structure for ten similar transit agencies in Northern and Central California. As shown, the average DAR fare of peer systems for the general public is $2.43, depending on the service area, and ranged from $1.25 to $4.00. The average elderly/disabled fare of the reviewed agencies was $1.98 and $1.91 depending on the service. Most agencies charged a single-ride fare of $2.00 for seniors or disabled passengers; however, they range from $0.60 to $3.75 with rural local services charging the lowest fares. EDCTA’s general public DAR fare is roughly 25 percent higher than its peers but the fare for elderly and/or disabled passenger is roughly 25 percent lower than that of the peer transit agencies reviewed. It should also be noted that EDCTA does not provide a reduced fare for youth general public (as does 3 of the 5 peer systems serving general public riders on DAR).
Given the relatively low farebox return ration for the DAR program, that fares for elderly/disabled passengers are relatively low compared to peers, and that these fares have not been increased in many years, it is appropriate to consider a fare increase for the DAR program. Another consideration is that a fare increase could better ensure that those passengers most in need of the service are provided with service. At present, DAR capacity is largely “rationed” by passenger’s ability to make a reservation in the short period after 8:00 AM three days prior to the desired day of service before all capacity is scheduled. Raising fares could shift passengers who have other potential travel options off of the DAR service, freeing capacity for those most in need of transportation.
TCRP Report 119, Improving ADA Complementary Paratransit Demand Estimation, developed a series of paratransit demand factors using data from 28 representative systems. The factor for base partransit fare was determined to be appropriate for estimating the impact on ridership from a fare increase on the EDCTA DAR system. This analysis is considered consistent with an elasticity analysis. Due to capacity constraints, DAR is essentially limited to senior and disabled passengers, therefore the elderly/disabled fare of $1.50 was used as a base for this analysis.
If the elderly/disabled fare were increased to $2.00 (in line with peer agencies), a 33 percent increase, ridership is estimated to decrease from 33,230 to 31,600 annual passenger-trips or 5 percent. Note that the overall impact on ridership is expected to be relatively slight, as persons currently unable to make a reservation due to capacity constraints would tend to “backfill” the loss of ridership associated with the fare increase. The increased fare level would increase farebox revenue by $18,000 (assuming a corresponding 33 percent increase in fares for all DAR zones). Factoring by 2.4 passenger-trips are carried per vehicle service hour, (Table 30), 690 fewer vehicle service hours will be required. Using the updated cost model, a decrease of $71,000 in DAR operating costs is estimated. Adding the increase in fare revenues, this option would reduce overall annual subsidy requirements by approximately $89,000.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 187
TABLE 47: Peer Review of Dial-A-Ride Route Fares
Single-Ride Provider Regular Youth Elderly Disabled
EDCTA (For Single Zone Trip) $3.00 $3.00 $1.50 $1.50 Gold Country Stage - - $2.00 $2.00 Placer County Transit1 $2.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 Folsom Stage - - $3.75 $3.75 2 Merced County Transit $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $1.00 Modesto Area Express $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 Redding Area Bus Authority - - $3.00 $3.00 San Benito Transit 4 $2.00 / $1.75 $2.00 / $1.75 $1.00 / $0.75 $1.00 / $0.75 San Joaquin Regional Transit District $2.00 / $1.25 5 $1.00 6 $2.00 / $0.60 7 $2.00 / $0.60 7
Visalia City Coach $3.00 $3.00 $2.00 $2.00
Yuba Sutter Transit $4.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 (8) Peer Average $2.43 $1.86 $2.08 $1.98 (8) EDCTA Percent of Peer Average 124% 162% 72% 76% EDCTA Ranking(8) 2 / 8 1 / 5 9 / 11 8 / 11
Note 1: Rocklin/ Loomis / Hwy 49 region Note 2: General Public only allowed in Atwater and Winton service area Note 3: Merced and Los Banos fares are $2.00 (no General Public allowed) and Atwater and Winton fares are $1.00 Note 4: Fares are displayed as within City limits and outside City limits Note 5: Rural fare is $2.00, Escalon fare is $1.25. Note 6: Escalon service area Note 7: SMA-ADA and Rural fares are $2.00, Escalon fare is $0.60.
Note 8: Assuming fare for largest area in San Benito and San Joaquin to best match the large EDCTA service area.
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. – compiled from transit providers July 2007, February 2008.
Potential Increase in Senior Day Care Subscription DAR Fare
Since 1980 and to the present day, the Senior Day Care program participants are charged a fare of only $2.00 per day (for either one-way or two-way service), which results in an average fare of $1.09 per one- way passenger-trip – substantially below the $1.50 fare for other Seniors. This service is capped at 30 round-trips per day. Given that the cost of providing a DAR passenger-trip is on the order of $41, the Senior Day Care program passenger revenues are currently covering only 2.6 percent of the cost of providing service. To make service more equitable, the daily fare could be tied to the base Senior DAR fare, resulting in a raise to $3.00 per day. This option is not expected to result in any loss of ridership, and would increase fare revenue by roughly $1,000 per year.
Potential Increase in DAR Fares in El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park/Shingle Springs Zones
The DAR service operates on a series of 12 zones, with fares based on the cost associated with providing service to each zone and the length of a passenger’s trip (as measured in the number of zone boundaries crossed). While most fares were defined to result in passenger’s paying roughly equivalent proportions of overall service costs, an exception was made for the El Dorado Hills zone (Zone A) and the Cameron
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 188 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Park/Shingle Springs zone (Zone B). These fares were set equivalent to the base fares for Zone C (the Placerville area) even though the cost of providing service to these zones far from the existing EDCTA operating base in Diamond Springs results in substantially higher costs to serve passengers in Zones A and B. This strategy assumed that demand for DAR service in Zones A and B would grow to the point where is would be efficient to operate DAR vans on an ongoing basis in the western portion of the County, thereby reducing operating costs per passenger-trip. In reality, this demand has not materialized: as shown in Table 24, roughly 17 percent of DAR ridership is generated by Zone B and 3 percent by Zone A. All but a few of these riders are traveling from Zones A or B to Zone C, with very low level of ridership traveling within Zones A or B (which would justify basing a vehicle in these zones). The current fare system, therefore, is inequitable in that a passenger in other outlying areas (such as Pollock Pines or Camino) pays a higher fare and proportion of total costs than does a passenger in Zones A or B, even though the cost of service is comparable. For example, the Senior/Disabled fare for a trip within Pollock Pines is $5.00 while the fare for a trip within El Dorado Hills is $1.50, and the fare from a trip between Pollock Pines and Placerville is $6.00 while the fare between El Dorado Hills and Placerville is $2.50.
Under this alternative, fares in Zone A would be set equivalent to fares in Zone L (Pollock Pines), while fares in Zone B would be set equivalent to fares in Zone D (Camino). This would result in the following changes in Senior/Disabled fares for common trips:
El Dorado Hills – El Dorado Hills: From $1.50 to $5.00 El Dorado Hills – Placerville: From $2.50 to $6.00 Cameron Park – Cameron Park: From $1.50 to $3.00 Cameron Park – Placerville: From $2.00 to $3.50
Applying these fare increases to the estimated annual ridership generated by the affected zones, an elasticity analysis indicates that overall DAR ridership from the outlying zones would be reduced by approximately 600 one-way passenger-trips per year. However, it is expected that this capacity would be filled by trips in other portions of the service area that are not currently accommodated. Roughly $3,400 in additional fare revenue would be generated.
Potential Increase in Commuter Fares
It is also appropriate as part of this study to evaluate the existing commuter fares. As a basis for this evaluation, existing fares on nine Sacramento region commuter services were evaluated as peers to El Dorado Transit. As shown in Table 48, this review indicates the following:
Single-Ride Fare – The single fares range from $1.50 on e-Tran to $5.50 on Placer County Transit (from Colfax to Sacramento). The average single fare among the peers (considering the mid-point of the Placer County Transit route and the resident rate for Roseville Transit) is $3.04, which is substantially less than El Dorado Transit’s $4.00 base fare. Three systems charge a higher fare and three a lower fare.
Monthly Pass Cost – The monthly pass is the primary choice of passengers on most commuter transit services. The monthly passes range in price from $60.00 on e-Tran to $170.00 on Placer County Transit’s Colfax commuter. Compared to other peer systems in the Sacramento Region, El Dorado Transit’s commuter monthly pass ($144.00) is substantially more expensive than the average ($100.40), with the second highest fare in the region.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 189
% ------17.9% 11.0% Farebox Systemwide y r Fare per Hou 4 / 7 5 / 7 72% 77% $3.35 $2.56 ------Time Single Monthl Travel y Fare per Mile 4 / 7 4 / 7 83% 88% $0.11 $0.08 -- $0.08 $0.05 1 hr 30 min $2.33 $1.45 19.0% ------Sac RT "Combo"
y plus
trip $85 $0.25 per 4 / 7 2 / 7 Fare Pass Pass Single Monthl $3.50 $112.00 -- $0.08 $0.06 1 hr $3.50 $2.55 22.0% $1.50 $60.00 -- $0.08 $0.07 50 min $1.81 $1.64 20.0% $3.50 $3.04 $100.40 $3.25$4.50 $110.00 not available $155.00 not available $0.19 $0.26 $0.15 $0.21 40 min 40 min $4.92 $6.82 $3.79 $5.34 $2.00 $80.00 $0.10 85.00$ $0.09 40 min $3.03 $2.75 26.0% $5.50$4.50 $170.00 $140.00 -- -- $0.10 $0.12 $0.07 $0.09 1 hr 30 min $3.67 1 hr $2.58 $4.50 $3.18 $4.00 $144.00 170.50$ $0.09 $0.07 1hr 40 min $2.41 $1.97 22.1% $4.00 $125.00 -- $0.17 $0.12 45 min $5.33 $3.79 132% 143% Single Monthl (2) (1) (2) (2) r Resident / Reverse Non-Resident Colfax, Clipper Gap Auburn, Penryn, Loomis Rocklin, Roseville TABLE 48 : Peer Fare Review on Commuter Downtown Sacramento Services Peer Average Roseville Transit Yolobus Yuba-Sutter Transit Amador Regional Transit Elk Grove: e-Tran Placer County Transit, from… El Dorado County Transit Provide EDCTA Percent of Peer Average EDCTA Ranking Note 1: Amador Regional Transit monthly pass fare per mile assumes 44 trips month. Note 2: Assuming "Auburn" for PCT and "Resident" Roseville Transit. Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Compiled from websites; January 2008
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 190 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Fare per Mile – As the various commuter services vary in length, it is appropriate to also consider the fare charged per route mile. In the single fare category, fare per mile ranges from $0.08 (Amador Regional Transit, Yuba Sutter Transit, and e-Tran) to $0.26 (Roseville non-resident). The average single ride fare per mile is $0.11 which is greater than El Dorado Transit’s single ride fare per mile ($0.09). Monthly pass fares per mile range from $0.06 on Yuba Sutter Transit to $0.15 for a Roseville Transit (resident). El Dorado Transit’s monthly pass fare per mile ($0.07) is less than the peer average of $0.08. If the average single fare per mile and monthly pass fare per mile is multiplied by the one- way mileage between Placerville and Downtown Sacramento (45 miles) a single ride commuter fare of $483 and monthly pass price of $164 would result. EDCTA’s fare per mile ranks in the middle of the peers, with three systems with a higher value and three with a lower value.
Fare per Hour of Travel Time – As most of the cost of providing transit service is associated with the time required for a trip (rather than the mileage), a better comparison is the fare per passenger- hour of travel time. A typical trip between Placerville and downtown Sacramento takes about 1 hour and 40 minutes. Peer transit agency fare per hour ranges from $1.81 (single)/$1.64 (monthly pass) on e-Tran to $6.82 (single)/$5.34 (monthly pass) on Roseville Transit (non-resident). The average single fare per hour is $3.35 and the average monthly pass fare per hour is $2.56. El Dorado Transit is roughly 25 percent below the average in both of these categories. If the average fare per hour values are applied to travel time between Placerville and downtown Sacramento, EDCTA fares would be on the order of $5.56 for a single ride and $187 for a monthly pass.
Farebox Return Ratio – Also included in Table 48 is the systemwide farebox recovery ratio for each of the peer transit agencies. This data was obtained from the 2007 California Transit Association Fare Survey and does not include a break down of return ratio by type of service. Yolobus reported the highest systemwide farebox recovery ratio (26.0 percent) and Placer County Transit reported the lowest (11.0 percent). The fact that Placer County Transit has the lowest farebox ratio while fare per mile and fare per hour is relatively high compared to the other peers reflects the fact that commuter service (with a relatively high farebox return ratio) is a relatively small part of the overall Placer transit program. El Dorado Transit’s farebox recovery ratio is above the peer average of 19.7 percent.
Travel Conditions – The type of terrain over which the peer commuter transit services also varies. Placer County Transit, El Dorado Transit, and Amador Transit are based in the foothills and therefore require travel up and down grades, whereas Yolobus has a rather flat journey from Davis to Sacramento. As mentioned above, transit operating costs are more closely related to vehicle hours not vehicle miles. The effect of hilly terrain on the cost of service or service life of an engine is minimal compared with the number of hours the bus is in service.
This analysis indicates that EDCTA’s fares are below the peer average when factors such as distance and travel time are considered. An elasticity analysis was performed to determine the impact on ridership and farebox revenues if EDCTA raised the base fare to $4.50 and the monthly pass price to $162.00, a 12.5 percent increase. Commuter route ridership would decrease from 126,700 to 125,300 annual one-way passenger trips and farebox revenue would increase by $56,900. Fare on both a per-mile and per-hour basis would still be less than the average value for the peer systems in the region.
Potential Increase in Local Route Fares
Finally, fares for similar systems were reviewed with regards to the local route system. The general public base fare and monthly pass rate for nine rural transit agencies operating in Northern California were reviewed, as presented in Table 49. Single ride fares range from $1.00 to $1.75 and monthly pass prices range from $30.00 to $58.00. Both EDCTA’s single ride fare and monthly pass price are less than the peer averages of $1.34 (single) and $46 (monthly pass). A reasonable alternative would be to increase the
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 191
EDCTA base fare to $1.25 (with a corresponding proportional increase in other fare types). Based on a fare elasticity analysis, this fare increase would decrease annual one-way passenger-trips by 6,200 or 4.4 percent, with a corresponding increase in fare revenue of $16,800 or 8.6 percent.
TABLE 49: Peer Fare Review - Local Routes
General Public Base Monthly Provider Fare Pass
El Dorado County Transit $1.10 $33.00 e-Tran (Elk Grove) $1.50 $60.00 Placer County Transit (1) $1.00 $30.00 Yolobus $1.50 $60.00 Yuba-Sutter Transit $1.00 $30.00 Amador Regional Transit (1) $1.00 $34.00 Roseville Transit $1.50 $58.00 TART (North Lake Tahoe) (1) $1.50 $45.00 BlueGo (South Lake Tahoe) $1.75 $50.00
Peer Average $1.34 $45.88 EDCTA Percent of Peer Average 82% 72% EDCTA Ranking 6 / 9 7 / 9
Note 1: 40 ride book instead of monthly pass Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Compiled from websites; January 2008
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 192 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Chapter 10 Short-Range Transit Plan
This Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) encompasses FYs 2008/09 through 2012/13. Much of the analysis used as a basis for the plan is presented in previous chapters; the reader is encouraged to refer to previous chapters for additional information and discussion regarding the various plan elements presented below. A graphic depicting the various plan elements is presented as Figure 37. This SRTP is contingent upon many factors, including future funding availability, changes in development and population, and other factors (notably the cost of gasoline) that could substantially change the demand for public transit services.
SERVICE PLAN
The service modifications to be accomplished under this SRTP are presented below. It should be noted that the ridership forecasts presented below have been developed as conservative projections, based on existing ridership patterns and typical observed ridership response to changes in service. Given recent increases in gasoline prices, ridership could potentially grow beyond these projections.
El Dorado Hills Deviated Fixed-Route
Under this SRTP, scheduled transit service for trips within the central El Dorado Hills area will be initiated. While it is important to initiate scheduled public transit service in El Dorado Hills, the ridership potential is limited due to the geographic and demographic characteristics of the community. In order to be effective, initial public transit services will need to be limited to a deviated fixed-route operated using a single vehicle, from roughly 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM. In particular, this deviated fixed-route strategy will avoid the need to provide an additional complementary paratransit van service, which would roughly double the cost of service within El Dorado Hills. Similar to the existing EDCTA Diamond Springs and Cameron Park Routes, a single bus should operate along a defined schedule, with adequate time to also serve individual ride requests within three-fourths of a mile of the designated route.
Figure 38 presents the recommended route. One bus will be used to provide hourly service on the following individual routes, alternating between the route segments:
Departing the El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride, the El Dorado Hills Route will travel north along El Dorado Hills Boulevard, directly serving the Raley’s Center. The route will also divert off of El Dorado Hills Boulevard on Lassen Lane to service the Senior Center and then on Harvard Way to serve the Teen Center and other recreational facilities using the roadway through the Community Park, returning to El Dorado Hills Boulevard at St. Andrews Drive. The route will turn left on Francisco Drive, right onto Village Center Drive, and right onto Salmon Falls Road before returning southbound along the same route. With a left turn onto Town Center Boulevard and a right turn on Post Street, the route segment will terminate at the Park-and-Ride. This route segment would require roughly 30 minutes to complete.
The southern portion of the route would consist of a smaller loop serving the Town Center and Town Center East areas, the multifamily area along Valley View Parkway, and the Sunset Mobile Home Park. From the Park-and-Ride, the route will turn left from Post Street onto White Rock Road, right
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 193
50
1 CNL SCHOOL SCHNELL IN MILES SCALE 0 STOP
49 ON DEMAND OLRLN. FOWLER NEW ESKATON NEW PLACERVILLE ON DEMAND STOPS
193
RE VALLEY GREEN OIIRD. FORINI 49 50 49 49 49
CANAL ST. EXPAND TO HOURLY EXPRESS SERVICE
OORD KOTO
ON RD. FORNI
ULTIMATELY COMBINE IPC & PLACERVILLE EXPRESS ROUTE FAIR FORINI
MISSOURI FLAT RD. LANE ON 50 DEMAND STOP NEW MALLARD 2 HOURLY SERVICE
REVISE CAMERON PARK TO PROVIDE .
D CAMBRIDGE D.R
IN MILES R
SCALE FIGURE 37
N
O
R
0 R
A
M
M I C SERVICE NEW HOURLY EL DORADO HILLS
VILLAGE CENTER
FRANCISCO 50 OTHER PLAN ELEMENTS LEGEND El Dorado County Transit Authority Short-Range Transit Plan HIGHWAY 50 ROADS LAKES URBAN AREA NEW HOURLY EL DORADO HILLSREVISED ROUTES HOURLY CAMERON PARK ROUTE HOURLY EXPRESS ROUTE EXISTING FOLSOM LAKE CENTER ROUTE EXISTING PLACERVILLE ROUTE EXISTING DIAMOND SPRINGS ROUTE ON DEMAND SERVICE COMBINE PLACERVILLE EXPRESS/POLLOCK PINES ROUTESADJUST SHORT IRON TERM POINT CONNECTOR TOCONVERT BETTER SUNDAY DIAL-A-RIDE SERVE TO PM TAXI COMMUTE ADJUST COUPON DOWNTOWN PROGRAM COMMUTER ROUTE 10CONSIDER PM RANCHO SCHEDULE CORDOVA STOP ONELIMINATE EXISTING SOUTH ROUTES COUNTY SERVICE INVESTIGATE GEORGETOWN/COOL/AUBURN SERVICE EXPAND DIAL-A-RIDE INCREASE LOCAL ROUTE AND DIAL-A-RIDE FARES * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CONSULTANTS, INC. TRANSPORTATION
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 194 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
FIGURE 38 Recommended El Dorado Hills Deviated Fixed-Route
MARINA LAKE VILLAGE FOREST SCHOOL SCHOOL
VILLAGE CENTER
GREEN VALLEY RD.
VILLAGE JACKSON CENTER SCHOOL
EL DORADO HILLS BLVD.
SCALE 0 .5 1 LEGEND ST. ANDREWS DR. HIGHWAY 50 CSD TEEN ROLLING CENTER HILLS IN MILES ROADS SCHOOL LAKES RECREATION EDH ROUTE FACILITIES ¾ MILE DEVIATION HARVARD WAY SERVICE AREA (APPROX.) SILVA
VALLEY
PKY.
OAK MEADOW SCHOOL
RALEY’S CENTER
PARK SENIOR CENTER TOWN 50 CENTER POSTVINE ST.
LATROBE
WHITE ROCK RD. VALLEY VIEW PKY.
PARK & RIDE 50
SUN CAST LN.
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 195
onto Valley View Parkway to a turn around near the southern end of the multifamily developments, return northbound on Valley View Parkway and Vine Street, turn left onto Mercedes Lane, and left onto Post Street back to the Park-and-Ride. This route segment would require roughly eight minutes to complete.
Final route design will require more detailed evaluation of bus stop and routing opportunities on a site-by-site basis. For instance, the limited public street network may require the use of private driveways to access some specific stops, which will be dependent on discussions with private landowners. Designating stops directly along El Dorado Hills Boulevard will also require a site-by- site evaluation of available pavement width, as it would not be acceptable for transit vehicles to block travel lanes. This may require the route to make short deviations off of El Dorado Hills Boulevard at additional locations.
Like the other existing EDCTA deviated fixed-routes, service will also be available on demand to any location within a three-fourths of a mile distance of the routes. As shown in Figure 38, this service area includes many of the key activity centers in El Dorado Hills, including the Lake Forest School, Marina Village School, Rolling Hills School, and the northern portion of the El Dorado Hills Business Park.
This route should be scheduled to provide direct transfers to and from the IPC at the El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride. Based on the current IPC service times at 10 minutes past the hour westbound and 53 minutes past the hour eastbound, an example schedule for this service is as follows:
North Route Segment Departure from El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride :12 Arrive at EDH Community Service District Northbound :19 Arrive at Village Center :26 Arrive at EDH Community Service District Southbound :34 Arrive at El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride :40
South Route Segment Departure from El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride :55 Arrive Valley View Parkway :58 Arrive Mercedes Lane :01 Arrive at El Dorado Hills Park-and-Ride :03
Due to the limited hours of service, this route will not generate the full ridership identified for the fixed-route alternative discussed in Chapter 6. In particular, it will not serve commute trips. However, the schedule will still serve the majority of shopping and social service trips in the community, along with all after-school activities. Taking this factor into account, ridership on this new service is estimated to equal 11,000 passenger-trips per year.
This service element is planned for implementation in FY 2009/10. While it is a key priority, time will be required to provide the additional vehicle and to establish bus stops. Therefore, service may not actually be implemented until FY 2010/11.
In addition, future growth in ridership demand in El Dorado Hills may warrant expansion beyond this service plan within the five year SRTP period. If warranted and financially feasible, new services – such as expansion in service hours and expansion in service area – should be considered.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 196 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Community – Express Route Plan
Ultimately, the EDCTA route system will be reconfigured into a “Community – Express” route system, with hourly express service along US 50 between Placerville Station and Iron Point Light Rail Station, using three buses on a three-hour round-trip schedule, and a series of community routes serving individual communities along the corridor. The following modifications will be implemented:
The IPC and Placerville Express routes will be combined into a single route and a third bus added to provide consistent hourly “clock” headways along the corridor.
The El Dorado Hills Route, described above, will serve as the community route for El Dorado Hills.
The Cameron Park Route will be shortened by eliminating service along Mother Lode Drive east of Sunset Lane, allowing the schedule to be improved to hourly service. This route will serve both Cameron Park and Shingle Springs.
One bus will operate the existing Diamond Springs and Folsom Lake College Routes on an hourly headway. Passengers will transfer to the Express Route at Missouri Flat Transfer Center (MFTC), or potentially at a replacement transfer center along Missouri Flat Road.
Two buses will continue to operate the existing Placerville Routes on an hourly headway, providing the circulating service.
One bus will operate the Pollock Pines Route, transferring to the Express Route at Placerville Station.
The Express Route could also serve the other Park-and-Ride lots at specific times during the commute periods, or on request at other times. The specific location of transfer points in Cameron Park and Shingle Springs will require detailed evaluation, considering the needs for convenient access by both the express and community routes, and the benefits of serving both Park-and-Ride parking as well as commercial centers.
In addition to the bus required for the El Dorado Hills route, this plan will require one more bus than currently operated.
Under this SRTP, the service along US 50 (currently the Iron Point Express Route) will become a key element of the local transit service within El Dorado County. After conversion to the express route, fares for trips within El Dorado County will be set at the local route fare rate (currently $1.10 for general public, $0.55 for seniors or disabled), while fares for service to or from Folsom will be set at the current Iron Point Express rate ($2.50 for all passengers).
In addition, a half-fare ($1.25) will be provided for seniors or disabled passengers to and from Folsom. The question of fares, as well as other facets of this plan element, will be re-evaluated prior to implementation.
This plan element is currently not financially feasible given existing funding sources. Additional federal funding sources (such as Job Access Reverse Commute funding) will be pursued to accomplish this service improvement. Provision of additional local funding (such as from the Red Hawk Casino) could speed the implementation of this plan element.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 197
Combine Placerville Express and Pollock Pines Routes
The hourly Placerville Express and Pollock Pines Routes, which currently meet at Placerville Station to exchange passengers, will be combined into a single route. Service will continue to be provided hourly using two buses over a two-hour-long route. Deviations will be provided east of Placerville. This plan element, which will be implemented in FY 2008/09, will improve passenger convenience by avoiding the need to transfer, at no change in cost to the transit service.
Sunday Taxicab Subsidy Program
The existing Sunday EDCTA General Public DAR services will be replaced by a taxi subsidy program. This strategy has the potential of substantially reducing public subsidies needed to serve existing Sunday mobility needs, or to alternatively expand the ridership served on Sundays. Under this option, passengers will still make advanced reservations for service with EDCTA dispatchers. Rather than operating Sunday service, however, the Sunday passenger schedule will be provided to the contracted taxi operator or operators, which will then serve the scheduled requests. In addition to paying the DAR fare to the taxi operator, the passenger will also sign a voucher filled in by the taxi driver providing the details on the trip (including the passenger’s name). The taxi operator(s) will then provide a monthly invoice to EDCTA for reimbursement of the difference between the collected fare and a contracted amount per trip (which could vary by mileage). To be eligible for reimbursement, the passenger name would have to appear on the passenger manifest provided by EDCTA. Assuming that ridership under a taxi program would not change from the current DAR ridership, and at existing local taxi fares, this strategy will reduce annual operating subsidy by approximately $46,800 per year.
This SRTP element, of course, is dependent upon successfully coming to an agreement with a qualified local cab company to provide the subsidy service. The contractor(s) will also need to comply with federal requirements. A successful taxi subsidy program will also require more administrative time than the current DAR service, including oversight of the contract, ensuring that service providers maintain the required insurance, vehicle inspection records, and driver records, marketing the service and responding to passenger complaints.
To implement this program, EDCTA should develop a Request For Proposal (RFP) in FY 2008/09. Once one or more contractors are selected through the RFP process, the conversion to the new service would occur in FY 2009/10. It should also be noted that it is expected that this plan element can be implemented without any negative impact on working conditions for EDCTA employees.
Modifications to Placerville Routes to Serve New Developments
New developments in the Placerville area will warrant the following modifications to the Placerville Shuttle Routes, as shown in Figure 37:
In the northwest portion of Placerville, one additional request-only stop will be established to serve “The Ridge at Orchard Hill” subdivision north of the Phoenix Center along Mallard Lane off of Green Valley Road.
In the southeast portion of Placerville, one additional request-only stop will be established at the Eskaton Senior Community, currently under construction on Blairs Lane south of Broadway.
These modifications will be made once the associated developments are complete.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 198 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Temporary Changes to Local Routes to Address Construction Delays
Because of the limited roadway network (particularly across US 50) and the interlining of routes, the EDCTA deviated fixed-route system can be significantly impacted by construction delays, with delays along one individual route cascading across the remainder of the system. In order to keep service quality at acceptable levels, EDCTA will consider temporary modifications to the deviated fixed-route operating plan, in order to address long-term construction delays and to minimize the impacts of expected delays on the overall route network. EDCTA staff will work with local and state project planners to identify the need for changes to the route network and to identify the incremental costs of temporary services. Optimally, these costs will be recouped from the budget of construction projects.
Shift Iron Point Connector Schedule Mid-Day to Better Serve Commute Times
The IPC schedule will be modified to better serve the afternoon commute period by shifting the schedule after 11:40 AM one hour later. This will provide a more convenient 5:27 PM eastbound departure from the Iron Point light rail station, allowing employees along the light rail line with roughly a 4:30 PM end of the work day to make a transfer to IPC with only a short wait. The last run of the day (currently departing westbound from Missouri Flat at 5:40 PM) will also be eliminated, resulting in a last westbound departure at 4:40 PM. Table 50 presents the revised IPC schedule. This plan element also has the benefits of generating a net increase in ridership of 800 passenger-trips per year, while reducing subsidy requirements by $47,000 per year.
Serve Red Hawk Casino on Iron Point Connector
The IPC Route will be modified to serve the front entrance of the Red Hawk Casino, once the casino opens. Due to the good access route, this additional stop can be served within the existing schedule, minimizing the incremental operating cost. Fares generated by ridership to and from this stop, which will largely consist of employees, will more than offset this cost, yielding a net reduction in operating subsidy on the order of $40,000 per year.
TABLE 50: Revised Iron Point Connector Schedule
Stop Missouri Flat Transfer Center 5:40 AM 7:40 AM 9:40 AM 12:40 PM 2:40 PM 4:40 PM Fairgrounds Park and Ride 5:45 AM - - --- Ponderosa Rd. Park and Ride 5:54 AM 7:54 AM 9:54 AM 12:54 PM 2:54 PM 4:54 PM Cambridge Rd. Park and Ride 5:59 AM 7:59 AM 9:59 AM 12:59 PM 2:59 PM 4:59 PM El Dorado Hills Park and Ride 6:10 AM 8:10 AM 10:10 AM 1:10 PM 3:10 PM 5:10 PM Iron Point Light Rail System 6:27 AM 8:27 AM 10:27 AM 1:27 PM 3:27 PM 5:27 PM Kaiser Permanente 6:36 AM 8:36 AM 10:36 AM 1:36 PM 3:26 PM 5:36 PM
Folsom Lake College - Folsom Campus 6:41 AM 8:41 AM 10:41 AM 1:41 PM 3:41 PM 5:41 PM El Dorado Hills Park and Ride 6:53 AM 8:53 AM 10:53 AM 1:53 PM 3:53 PM 5:53 PM Cambridge Rd. Park and Ride 7:02 AM 9:02 AM 11:02 AM 2:02 PM 4:02 PM 6:02 PM Ponderosa Rd. Park and ride 7:13 AM 9:13 AM 11:13 AM 2:13 PM 4:13 PM 6:13 PM Fairgrounds Park and Ride 7:18 AM - - - - 6:18 PM Missouri Flat Transfer Center 7:27 AM 9:27 AM 11:27 AM 2:27 PM 4:27 PM 6:27 PM
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 199
Provision of this service (seven stops per day in each direction) is in the best interest of EDCTA, as it (1) reduces operating subsidy requirements, (2) serves a key new employment center, and (3) reduces the potential for increased demand for DAR service (which is much more expensive to provide).
Consider Changes to Iron Point Connector Stops within Folsom
EDCTA will add a stop on the IPC Route at the major new Kaiser facility at Bidwell Street and Broadstone Parkway, once it is completed. In addition, EDCTA will work with the City of Folsom to encourage improved bus access to the existing Kaiser Hospital.
Continue to Serve Downtown Sacramento with Commuter Service
While it is inequitable that all of the subsidy requirements of this service are borne by the “residential” end of the service and none by the “employment” end, it remains a fact that the EDCTA commuter service to downtown Sacramento provides a strong benefit to the many El Dorado County residents that use the service, in terms of commute cost savings and quality of life. This benefit, moreover, increases with every jump in the price of gasoline. To the degree that the bus service reduces congestion along the US 50 corridor upwind of El Dorado County, this service is also benefiting all El Dorado County residents.
This plan recognizes, however, that the current scope of the Commuter Service represents the maximum program that can be provided under current funding conditions. Given existing funding limitations, and barring new funding sources (such as funding partnerships with other jurisdictions), any increase in subsidy for Commuter Service effectively represents a reduction in services that can be provided within El Dorado County. EDCTA has therefore effectively reached the maximum size of commuter service that can be supported.
Consider a Rancho Cordova Stop on Some EDCTA Sacramento Downtown Commuter Runs Once Improved Rancho Cordova Local Services are in Place
This plan does not include reinstatement of EDCTA service, using solely funds available to El Dorado County, directly to Rancho Cordova employment sites. However, the City of Rancho Cordova is currently developing plans for a comprehensive network of local services that could distribute passengers to and from the EDCTA Downtown Commuter services from a single centralized transit station. Once these plans begin to be implemented, EDCTA should review the potential to serve a single stop in Rancho Cordova, with a minimum of two AM and two PM runs. In particular, this review should consider the benefits of providing service opportunities for El Dorado County residents working in Rancho Cordova against the delays that would be incurred by downtown commuters. Given the relatively small impact to the EDCTA program, this alternative seems to have a high longer term potential, so long as plans to expand local services in Rancho Cordova are realized.
Eliminate South County Service
Due to very low ridership (on the order of three one-way passenger-trips per day of service), the one-day- a-week South County service will be eliminated (but not the Grizzly Flat Route). Additional marketing efforts would not significantly increase ridership, and some of the existing ridership is occurring along the Grizzly Flat Route and would still have at least some public transit service. EDCTA should market the fact that South County residents can access the every-Thursday Grizzly Flat service in Somerset Corner, avoiding the need to drive or be driven into the Placerville area.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 200 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Investigate the Provision of Service Between Georgetown and Auburn
The population of the northwestern portion of the County, including the communities of Georgetown, Cool, and Pilot Hill, totals approximately 8,000 residents that currently have no public transit services. Residents of these areas tend to travel to Auburn for medical appointments, pharmacy visits, and other needs. A service operated one day per week from Georgetown through Cool to Auburn (and on request to Pilot Hill along the way) would provide at least a minimal public transit option to this substantial number of residents. The most cost-effective means of providing this service would be to contract with an Auburn-based public transit program. Placer County funds a transit service in this region and is currently going out to bid for a new contractor. To ensure that the best contractor is identified and to comply with regulations, EDCTA should release a Request For Proposals for this service and fully consider all potential service contractors.
Expand DAR Service as Needed to Maintain Service Quality
The demand for DAR service is expected to increase over the plan period due to population growth and aging of the population. Given this fact and existing capacity constraints, this Service Plan therefore includes expansion in DAR equivalent to an additional 8 vehicle service hours per weekday to meet existing and potential future demand. The daily vehicle service hours will be allocated by operations staff depending on anticipated needs and observed operating patterns. Operations staff is best able to determine how these additional resources would ultimately be used. One additional vehicle will be required.
Participate in Regional Efforts to Expand Intercity Transit Service Along US 50
While this focused plan has not identified a feasible service along US 50 between Western El Dorado County and the Tahoe Basin (or beyond) based solely on the needs of Western El Dorado County, there may well be sufficient need for such service when considered for the corridor as a whole. EDCTC and EDCTA should work with others in the region to expand transit services along the US 50 corridor where feasible. Any agreement regarding local funding allocation should reflect the relative need generated by each area.
Service Options Evaluated But Not Included in Plan
The following services were considered as part of this planning study (as presented in Chapter 6, above) but are not recommended for inclusion in the plan:
Reinstatement of the Rancho Cordova Commuter Route. While surveys indicate there is some interest for at least occasional usage of this service by some El Dorado County residents, the results of previous services and the evaluation of transit demand conducted as part of this study indicate that ridership would not be sufficient to attain performance standards on an ongoing basis. Even if this were to occur, the service would require substantial increases in subsidy funding. EDCTA is now in a limited financial situation where all ongoing available funding is already allocated for transit services. Any increase in subsidy expended outside of the County therefore reduces opportunities to expand public transit services within El Dorado County (assuming that funding for all operating subsidy requirements is not provided by another jurisdiction, such as Sacramento County or the City of Rancho Cordova). As the City of Rancho Cordova’s local transit program expands to the point where it can effectively distribute transit passengers from a single centralized transit stop, however, EDCTA should consider serving a stop on a limited number of Downtown commuter runs.
Additional IPC Runs. These were found to not be cost-effective as a stand-alone option, at least prior to opening of the casino.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 201
Additional Pollock Pines Runs. These were also found to be not cost effective.
Additional Sacramento Downtown Commuter Runs were not found to be effective, and would conflict with the need to focus any additional resources on local services.
Sacramento Airport service would be very expensive to provide (if it were to be comprehensive enough to be effective), and would use public funding to directly “compete” with an existing private service.
Expansion of DAR to Serve South County. This would not meet the performance standards for the DAR service.
CAPITAL PLAN
Fleet Replacement and Expansion
Based upon current mileage and condition, as well as current utilization rates for existing services, the following vehicles will warrant replacement over the five-year planning period:
• 45-passenger buses (base cost of $500,000 per unit) – 6 in FY 2008/09, 1 in FY 2009/10, and 2 in 2010/11
• 22-passenger buses (base cost of $102,000 per unit) – 7 in FY 2008/09, and 2 in FY 2010/11
• 4-passenger minivans (base cost of $47,000 per unit) – 4 in FY 2008/09, 1 in FY 2010/11, 1 in 2011/12 and 1 in FY 2012/13
• Staff car (base cost of $25,000 per unit) – 1 in FY 2010/11
Of the 26 total revenue vehicles to be purchased under this plan, 23 are required for replacement and 3 are required for service expansion.
The 47-passenger buses (for commuter service) are intended to replace the existing 45-passenger Bluebird buses currently in the EDCTA fleet. The specific vehicle type in need of replacement is no longer being manufactured, and similar vehicles currently on the market do not have the specifications needed for commuter service. It is important for the long commute trip that the buses be equipped with all forward facing seats (as opposed to the typical urban transit bus, with partial side facing seats), as well as amenities such as individual reading lights and high-back seats. For these reasons, it will be necessary to purchase slightly larger “over the road” coaches. While the per-unit cost is roughly $100,000 greater than the old model, they have a useful life of 20 years rather than 12 years.
Retrofit Diesel Buses to Improve Air Quality
Due to the lack of natural gas infrastructure in El Dorado County and the requirements of the service area, Compressed Natural Gas engines are not a viable option. In the short term, continued reliance on diesel technologies for the larger vehicles is recommended. Engines will be retrofitted in FY 2007/08 on eight commuter buses to reduce particulate matter and nitrogen oxides.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 202 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
EDCTA should also continue to pursue options to further reduce air emissions through biodiesel and/or hybrid technologies. Biodiesel has the advantage of reducing particulates, hydrocarbons, and global warming gases (at least if producing the fuel does not require additional clearing of forest lands), but it does increase oxides of nitrogen. At present, moreover, it is not readily available in the Placerville area. Hybrid diesel–electric buses are becoming increasingly common in the public transit industry, and can reduce emissions by up to 90 percent from a conventional diesel bus. As hybrid buses can be $200,000 to $250,000 more expensive than standard diesel buses, use of hybrids in the EDCTA fleet is dependent on identifying new state or federal funding sources.
Improvements to Passenger Amenities
The following improvements will be made to the major passenger facilities:
Central Transit Center – Construct Park-and-Ride, bus bays, and shelters. This is planned for FY 2008/09.
Bass Lake Road – While a private developer will provide the site and fund construction of 100 parking spaces, EDCTA will provide funding to add an additional 100 spaces.
Ponderosa Road Park-and-Ride – Reconstruction of existing facility to improve roadway geometrics and allow on-site bus movements, in FY 2008/09.
Missouri Flat Road Park-and-Ride – Construct new bus transfer facility and 100 Park-and-Ride spaces. This would replace the existing transfer point along the west side of Missouri Flat Road south of Forni Road. Planned for FY 2010/11, using a combination of Proposition 1B, STA, and development fee funds. This project is dependent upon working with a private developer to obtain a site.
Security Enhancements
EDCTA will implement several measures to enhance security for passengers, employees, and the general public:
An alarm and video surveillance system will be installed at the maintenance facility. Installing an alarm and video surveillance system will help protect the property as well as safe-guard employees who work very early or late when few other people are around. $55,000 is budgeted for this improvement.
An automatic gate will be installed on the bus yard. While specific costs have not been identified, $10,000 is included in the budget.
EDCTA will install a mobile video surveillance system on all commuter and local route buses. Video surveillance technology on buses can be valuable in litigious situations and risk management. The visibility provided by onboard cameras gives the actionable intelligence required to ensure proper operation of the vehicles and confirmation that policies and procedures are being followed. In addition, the transit system has an unbiased “witness” to capture any incidents that occur on the vehicle. Cameras on buses also tend to make passengers feel safer. Installing cameras can help in addressing repeat customer offenses or misbehavior, resulting in improved comfort for all passengers. This system is estimated to cost $153,000.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 203
EDCTA will receive approximately $125,000 from the California Transit Security Grant Program State Transit Assistance Agencies (CTSGP-STAA) portion of Proposition 1B. The balance of the money required to finance these projects could come from TDA (STA) funds.
Solar Energy Arrays
EDCTA will pursue grant funding to install solar panels at the transit maintenance facility. Energy conservation and alternative forms of energy have become increasingly important in recent years. Many public entities have integrated alternative technologies such as solar power into their facilities and operations. The City of Vacaville has installed solar arrays on the City Hall and at the Bella Vista Park- and-Ride lot which produces electricity for city electric powered vehicles. In sunny California, large buildings or structures such as a covered bus parking or maintenance facility would provide a good location for solar panels.
EDCTA could benefit from installing solar arrays through the generation of energy and the reduction of its carbon footprint. Additionally, having an alternative source of energy would enhance EDCTA’s ability to keep operating in the event of a disaster. The cost of an array varies widely, but would likely be in the range of $300,000 to $700,000. Funding could potentially be acquired through Proposition 1B – Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA), as well as through the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) which funds California Solar Initiative projects.
Retired Van Donation Program
EDCTA will implement a program to provide older (but still useable) vans to qualifying agencies providing public or client transportation in El Dorado County. This will help community based organizations to expand mobility options that may not be economically feasible for EDCTA to directly service. To be eligible for a van:
The recipient must be a local non-profit organization or government entity whose primary purpose is to serve the elderly, disabled, or other element of the population with limited mobility options.
The organization must be able to provide at least 100 one-way passenger-trips each month. While out-of-county trips can be included in this total, at least one end of each trip must be within Western El Dorado County. Documentation shall be provided to EDCTA prior to allocation of the vehicle that supports (1) the demand for at least 100 passenger-trips per month and (2) the organizational capacity to operate the service. During a two year provisional period, ridership data will be recorded (by day, origin/destination, and type of passenger) and reported monthly to EDCTA, after which the organization is released from reporting requirements and the van is considered to be owned by the organization.
Preference is given to organizations which have the greatest need for the vehicle, reliable funding sources, and could provide a large amount of trips to mobility limited residents of Western El Dorado County.
The community based organization must agree to repaint the van so that it is no longer recognizable as a public transit vehicle.
Additionally, EDCTA will make an effort to provide free driver training. EDCTA currently has six vans that could be potentially provided to other organizations.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 204 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Transit Stops and Passenger Amenities
EDCTA will pursue a program to improve bus stops, including the provision of new shelters, benches, signage, and schedule information displays. Table 51 presents a summary of near-term improvements. As shown, shelters with benches and schedules will be installed at a total of 24 stops (including 15 to be provided as part of the advertising agreement with Lamar Transit Advertising). Benches will also be installed at three additional locations. In addition, EDCTA will install displays of bus schedules at all other high activity stops (with ten or more boardings per day). Finally, EDCTA will strive to install bus stop signs where feasible. Costs of these improvements (excluding shelters at the Park-and-Ride lots discussed above and those borne by the advertising firm) are estimated to equal $72,200. In addition, $30,000 is allocated prior to the implementation of the Community – Express route modifications for use in improving transfer points between routes.
Enhance Transit’s Role in a Multimodal Alternative Transportation Network
Along with bicycle and pedestrian travel, public transit can play a key role in a comprehensive transportation network for Western El Dorado County (and beyond) that is an alternative to private automobile travel. In particular, transit services can aid in providing the longer inter-community portions of individual trips, while non-motorized modes can serve the shorter local portions.
TABLE 51: El Dorado County Transit Authority Bus Stop Improvement Program
Improvement Shelter Bus Stop Location & Bench Bench Schedule 1004 Fowler Way, Placerville ■■Note 1 1266 Broadway, Placerville ■■Note 1 Future Cameron Park Community Center ■■Note 1 Motherlode Dr & South Shingle Springs Dr (near Gold Harvest Market ■■Note 1 Motherlode Dr & South Shingle Springs Dr (near Family Chevrolet) ■■Note 1 Cold Springs Road Site 1 (Cold Springs Dental) ■■Note 1 Cold Springs Road Site 2 (DMV) ■■Note 1 Marshall Medical Building, Palmer Drive, Cameron Park ■■Note 1 Cimarron Road and La Canada, Cameron Park ■■Note 1 Pleasant Valley and Oro ■■Note 1 Northeast corner of Pony Express Trail and Sanders Drive ■■Note 1 Northeast corner of Carson and Larson Road ■■Note 1 Corner of Broadway and Pointview Drive, Placerville ■■Note 1 Tentative location at US 50/Coloma Road (EDCA Lifeskills) ■■Note 1 Old City Hall ■■ Child Development (FLC) ■■ Raley’s (Placerville Dr.) ■■ Safeway (Cameron Park Place) ■■ Placerville Senior Center (existing bench) ■■ Pleasant Valley/Church Street ■■ Union Mine High School ■■ Ponderosa Park-and-Ride ■■ Rodeo Road Park-and-Ride ■■ Fairgrounds Park-and-Ride ■■ M.O.R.E. ■ Gold Country Inn ■ Lake Oaks/Patterson ■
Note 1: Shelter and bench provided through advertising contract.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 205
To fulfill this potential, EDCTA will undertake the following:
EDCTA will strive to provide bicycle lockers at all transit centers and park-and-ride facilities.
The EDCTA will work to ensure that adequate bicycle parking is available at high-activity stops, focusing on those with observed or potentially high bicycle usage. Stops with high observed bicycle use of the vehicle bike racks will also be reviewed to identify if improved bicycle parking can avoid the need for the passenger to bring their bicycle along on the bus.
Where physically feasible, EDCTA will provide three-position bicycle racks on transit vehicles.
EDCTA’s interest in bicycle/pedestrian facilities extends beyond the bus stop. At one end of their trip or the other, virtually all transit passengers also travel on foot or on bicycle as part of their transit trip. A key element of a successful transit system is a convenient system of sidewalks and bikeways serving the transit stops. EDCTA will continue to work with the planning and public works departments of El Dorado County, the City of Placerville, the City of Folsom, and other jurisdictions in the service area to review construction plans and schedule priorities for pedestrian and bicycle improvements to coordinate with the needs of transit passengers.
Advanced Public Transit System Technologies
Advanced Public Transit System (APTS) technologies are increasingly being implemented to enhance system efficiency and safety. EDCTA has already implemented one low-cost APTS strategy through the Zonar AVL and maintenance management system. Other APTS strategies that EDCTA will pursue consist of the following:
Implement a “Smart Card” program for the Commuter Service – This will be implemented as part of the larger regionwide transit smart card program. It will enhance transfers to and from connecting transit systems, increase the convenience of fare payment and processing, and improve EDCTA’s ability to monitor ridership.
Mobile Data Terminals – “MDTs” will be considered as an expansion of the Zonar system. This can improve the speed and accuracy of communications between dispatchers and drivers, which is a particular benefit for the DAR service. It can also provide a security benefit by speeding emergency communications and allowing communication between driver and dispatcher without the knowledge of a perpetrator. As a first step, staff will investigate whether adequate communication systems are available to avoid “dead zones” and to define costs associated with an MDT program.
INSTITUTIONAL AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
Safety and Security
In addition to the capital security-related items discussed above, EDCTA will also enhance safety and security by formalizing procedures between the transit agency and local emergency services. EDCTA’s vehicles and well-trained employees constitute valuable community resources for providing transportation in case of an emergency, particularly for disabled residents. A written Emergency Management Plan will be developed, in coordination with the Office of Emergency Services, Public Heath Department, Sherriff’s Department, school districts, social service programs, and other nearby transit agencies.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 206 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Conduct Limited Study of Local Route Transfer Policy
Unlike transit systems in larger urban areas (where time stamping of transfer slips is a standard practice), the EDCTA local route transfer slips are valid for the remainder of the day, except for service on the route where the slip is issued. This has the benefit of being relatively easy for drivers to administer. However, with the growth in services (such as the implementation of the Placerville Express), this relatively lenient policy has provided a potential for abuse, in that a passenger can potentially use the transfer slip to conduct a round trip on the service with payment of only one fare. EDCTA will conduct a focused study of transfer use on the local routes over a three to five day period to identify if transfer abuse is a significant problem. By marking transfer slips, the pattern of use will be identified. As warranted based on the results of this study, changes to the transfer policy may be implemented including the use of differing transfers by time of day or time stamping of transfers.
Revise Sacramento RT Transfer Agreement
EDCTA will renegotiate the transfer agreement with Sacramento RT. While the majority of the agreement is currently acceptable, it is necessary to eliminate the inequitable provision allowing employees of one transit agency free passage on the other agency’s services.
Coordinate Services with the Red Hawk Casino
The Red Hawk Casino will soon become an important element in the overall El Dorado County transportation scene, as a large generator of transit ridership. In other nearby areas (such as Yolo County), Indian gaming operators and public transit systems have found ways to share resources and expand services to the benefit of the casino, the transit operator, and the general public. As the Red Hawk Casino and this SRTP both evolve over coming years, EDCTA and the casino operator should strive to find ways to coordinate services that efficiently serve the overall Western El Dorado County community.
Improve Marketing Efforts
Marketing is an essential element of a successful transit program and merits greater emphasis within the EDCTA program. Many of the service and capital elements discussed above will aid in marketing the service. Other specific marketing efforts that will be implemented as part of this SRTP consist of the following:
Improve monitoring of service quality – particularly on-time performance – as improving the quality of an organization’s “product” is an important element of any marketing strategy.
Develop a flyer for posting at Park-and-Ride locations and on Sacramento Commuter buses that details how the IPC along with Light Rail can be used to provide mid-day service options to passengers on the Commuter service. The fact that the IPC provides service every two hours over the working day from Sacramento back to El Dorado County should be marketed to commuter riders, including a notation on the commuter bus schedules.
Use El Dorado Transit brand more consistently and prominently on all vehicles, signs, facilities, and materials.
Develop a “testimonial” advertising campaign depicting how various types of residents can make convenient use of transit services.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 207
Increase outreach to “gatekeepers,” such as social service program managers. Conduct presentations at senior complexes and social service program sites to encourage transit use, including a “familiarization” ride on a transit bus and free ride coupons.
Form marketing partnerships with Raley's and other prominent county retailers.
Work in partnerships with social service providers and other gatekeepers to increase communications with the Latino community. Provide schedule and route information in Spanish, both on the website and in paper form.
Provide specific marketing programs for new services, such as El Dorado Hills local service.
Develop a “Visiting El Dorado by Transit” page on the EDCTA website that outlines visitor attractions that can accessed by EDCTA services. This page should also detail how the Reverse Commute services can be combined with local routes to provide an enjoyable day trip to the Placerville area for visitors staying in downtown Sacramento.
Specifically market to the Folsom Lake College community, including attending activity fairs and advertising in the student newspaper.
Develop and maintain an email list that will be used to notify passengers of service changes or interruptions. An email service can be effective in both increasing loyalty among passengers, as well as to minimize complaints. This is particularly important to the EDCTA Sacramento Commuter service due to the potential for traffic and construction delays along the US 50 corridor. Initially, an email list of commuter passengers should be developed, followed by a separate list for local deviated fixed-route and DAR passengers.
Revise Minimum Farebox Return Requirement
In response to the results of the 2000 Census, the US Census Bureau designated a portion of the westernmost portion of El Dorado County to be part of the Sacramento Urbanized Area. As detailed in the FY 2004-06 Triennial Performance Audit of El Dorado County Transportation Commission prepared by PMC in 2007, under state Transportation Development Act regulations it is appropriate to identify a “blended” value for the minimum farebox return ratio.
“If an operator serves urbanized and non-urbanized areas in the area of jurisdiction of a transportation planning agency, the transportation planning agency shall adopt rules and regulations to determine what portion of the public transportation services of the operator serves urbanized areas and what portion serves non-urbanized areas to determine its required ratio of fare revenues to operating cost, as defined by subdivision (a) of Section 99247, or its required ratio of the sum of fare revenues and local support to operating cost, or both. The transportation-planning agency shall submit the rules and regulations to the department for approval.”
The required minimum farebox return ratio for rural areas is set under TDA (for the claims process used in Western El Dorado County) to be 10 percent, while the value for urbanized areas is 20 percent. The formula for a blended farebox return ratio is typically based upon the proportions of population within the urban versus rural areas. Based upon the most recent available US Census data, the pertinent figures are as follows:
Western El Dorado County rural area population 104,477 84.46% Western El Dorado County urban area population 17,800 14.54% Total Western El Dorado County population 122,257 100.00%
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 208 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Factoring the population proportions by their applicable minimum farebox return ratio, the blended ratio for Western El Dorado County as a whole can be calculated as follows:
84.46% X 10% + 14.54% X 20% = 11.5%
It is therefore recommended that EDCTC submit this recommended change in the minimum farebox return ratio to the California Department of Transportation for their review and approval, and subsequently adopt the revised, blended minimum farebox return ratio.
FINANCIAL PLAN
Modifications to Fares
Given current economic conditions, EDCTA is currently planning on the following changes to the fare program:
The Senior Day Care subscription fare will be modified from the existing $2.00 per day to $3.00 per day starting in FY 2008/09 to match the fare for a DAR round trip. As most passengers use this service for a round trip, this fare increase will make the service more equitable. It will also help address the very low (2.6 percent) farebox return ratio on this service. Any future increases in the DAR fare will be matched by a parallel increase in the Senior Day Care subscription fare.
The DAR Zone Fares in Zones A (El Dorado Hills) and B (Cameron Park) will be increased to match fares currently required for Zones D (Camino) and L (Pollock Pines). This is necessary to make the fare program more equitable by providing equal fares for similar transit trips east of Placerville and west of Placerville. Specifically, the following senior/disabled fare increases will be implemented (paralleled by other fare increases to and from Zones A and B):
- Zone A El Dorado Hills to/from Zone A El Dorado Hills: From $1.50 to $5.00 - Zone A El Dorado Hills to/from Zone C Placerville: From $2.50 to $6.00 - Zone B Cameron Park to/from Zone B Cameron Park: From $1.50 to $3.00 - Zone B Cameron Park to/from Zone C Placerville: From $2.00 to $3.50
It is recognized that these reflect very substantial increases in existing fares. However, they are necessary to ensure that riders in the western portion of the DAR service area are paying roughly the same proportion of the costs of services as those passengers living in the eastern portion of the area.
The DAR base fare will be increased from $3.00 to $4.00 for the general public and from $1.50 to $2.00 for elderly/disabled passengers in FY 2009/10. This fare increase is necessary to address the rising costs of providing services. In addition, a review of DAR fares charged at peer systems around Northern California indicates that the existing EDCTA elderly/disabled DAR fare is substantially below the peer average. This fare increase will result in an elderly/disabled fare very close to the existing peer average.
In FY 2009/10, the Local Route fare will be increased from $1.10 to $1.25 for the general public and from $0.55 to $0.60 for elderly/disabled. Monthly passes will be increased from $33 to $38 for the general public, from $21 to $24 for elderly/disabled, and from $25 to $29 for students (Kindergarten through Grade 12). Since fares were last raised in 1994, inflation has increased costs by roughly 39 percent. The resulting fares will remain below the existing average fare of eight peer transit services around Northern California ($1.25).
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 209
A $1.25 elderly/disabled fare will be established on the IPC, at 50 percent of the general public fare ($2.50). (Currently, there is no discount fare on this route). A monthly pass will be offered at $45 for elderly/disabled.
While this SRTP does not identify a specific increase in fares for Commuter Services, it is recognized that a future increase in fares may be necessary over the course of this planning period to address increases in the cost of services.
Subsidy Funding Sources
The following methodology was utilized in developing this Financial Plan:
First, forecasts of annual operating and administrative costs were developed, as presented in Table 52 for FY 2008/09 through FY 2012/13. “Base case” operating and administrative cost forecasts were estimated, assuming a 3 percent annual inflation rate of current costs in the absence of any change in service levels. Next, operating and administrative cost estimates were identified for each SRTP element, based upon the analyses presented in previous sections of this document, and consistent with the implementation plan presented below. These costs were also factored to reflect the assumed rate of inflation. Operating and administrative costs over the seven-year period will total approximately $33,011,500 with the SRTP elements, which is a 7 percent increase from the base case total of $30,881,700. Next, ridership for each SRTP element was estimated, as presented in Table 53. The “base case” ridership reflects expected ridership assuming no changes in service. The ridership impact of each Plan element (including the fare modifications) is then identified and summed. As new services do not immediately attain the full potential ridership, ridership on new services is factored to reflect 75 percent of potential ridership in the first year of service and 90 percent of potential ridership in the second year. For relatively small changes to existing services (such as combination of the Pollock Pines and Placerville Express routes), a 90 percent factor is assumed for the first year and full ridership thereafter. In addition, ridership (for both base case and for the service improvements) is factored to reflect a 2.5 annual increase in population and associated ridership demand. By FY 2012/13, ridership is forecast to equal 499,000 one-way passenger-trips per year, which is 83,200 trips over the base case forecast of 415,800. This indicates that the plan will result in a 20 percent increase in ridership by the end of the plan period.
Based on the ridership figures presented in Table 53, the estimated farebox revenues are presented in Table 54. Again, these figures reflect the impacts of the fare modifications. As presented, the base case farebox revenues for FY 2012/13 are estimated at $929,900. Implementation of the SRTP elements will increase FY 2009/10 farebox revenues by $198,200, equal to a 21 percent increase.
The next element necessary in the development of the SRTP is estimation of the capital cost for vehicles, passenger amenities, passenger facility improvements and operating equipment, as shown in Table 55 for each year of the Short Range Transit Plan period. It should be noted that an annual inflation rate of 3.0 percent is reflected in these figures. Capital items consist of the following:
- Vehicle purchases, as detailed above - Diesel engine retrofits - Security improvements - Transit Center improvements - Bus stop improvements, including bike lockers and racks
Capital costs over the five-year period will total approximately $9,147,100.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 210 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Total 5-Year Plan FY12-13 Projected FY11-12 Projected FY10-11 Projected FY09-10 Projected $0.0$0.0 $0.0 -$49.7 $0.0$3.4 -$51.1 $0.0 -$52.7$0.0 $3.5 $716.8$0.0 -$54.3 $14.9$0.0 $3.6 -$207.7 $716.8 $0.0 $15.3 -$25.1 $3.7 $286.0 -$25.9 $15.8 $294.5 -$26.6 $3.8 $16.2 $303.4 -$27.4 $18.0 $883.9 $62.1 -$105.0 $0.0 $231.2 $238.1$1.4 $245.2 $252.6 $3.0 $967.1 $3.1 $3.2 $3.2 $13.9 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $10.0 $14.0 $19.0 $21.0 $30.0 -$12.4 -$12.7 -$13.1 -$13.5 -$13.9 -$65.6 FY08-09 Projected $0.0 -$44.2 $130.9 $425.4 $439.6 $1,178.0 $2,140.8 $5,647.3 $5,816.7 $5,991.2 $6,170.9 $6,356.1 $6,546.8 $30,881.7 $5,647.3 $5,772.5 $6,122.2 $6,596.4 $6,795.7 $7,724.7 $33,011.5 FY07-08 Projected (1) t Cos g (2) eratin p Implement Community -- Express Route Plan Combine Placerville Express and Pollock Pines Routes Sunday Taxicab Subsidy Program Modify Placerville Routes to Serve New Developments Shift Iron Point Connector Schedule to Better Serve Commute TimesServe Casino on Iron Point Connector Route Eliminate South County Service -$46.7Georgetown -- Cool Auburn Service -$48.1Expand Dial-A-Ride Increased Dial-A-Ride Fares -$49.5Increased Marketing -$51.0Subtotal Plan Elements -$52.5 -$247.7 Implement El Dorado Hills Deviated Fixed Route TABLE 52: El Dorado County Transit Authority SRTP - Estimated Operating Cost Service Plan Elements Plan Element Base Case O Net Operating Cost All Figures in Thousands Note 1: The FY 2007-08 costs are based on the EDCTA mid-year budget, minus contingency. Note 2: This analysis assumes an annual inflation rate of 3 percent. Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 211
Total 5-Year Plan FY12-13 Projected FY11-12 Projected FY10-11 Projected FY09-10 Projected 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.00.0 35.3 0.00.0 1.10.0 0.01.9 -0.5 0.0 35.3 1.4 -6.6 8.0 -0.5 2.2 1.6 0.0 -6.8 8.2 -0.6 2.4 1.6 -7.0 8.5 -0.6 2.5 -7.2 5.7 24.7 -2.2 2.5 -27.6 11.5 0.0 8.85.7 10.8 12.4 5.8 12.8 6.0 44.8 6.2 6.4 30.1 2.7 3.1 3.2 3.3 0.0 12.3 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -0.2 -1.0 24.4 33.6 47.1 49.8 83.2 238.1 13.6 19.1 21.9 22.5 23.2 100.3 FY08-09 Projected 0.0 367.3 400.9 419.6 442.8 455.4 499.0 2,217.7 367.3 376.5 386.0 395.7 405.6 415.8 1,979.6 FY07-08 Projected (1) Implement El Dorado Hills Deviated Fixed Route Implement Community -- Express Route Plan Combine Placerville Express and Pollock Pines Routes Sunday Taxicab Subsidy Program Modify Placerville Routes to Serve New Developments Shift Iron Point Connector Schedule to Better Serve Commute TimesServe Casino on Iron Point Connector Route Eliminate South County Service 0.7Georgetown -- Cool Auburn Service Expand Dial-A-Ride Increase Dial-A-Ride Base Fare 0.8Increase Local Route Base Fare Establish Discount Elderly/Disabled IPC Fare 0.9Subtotal Plan Elements 0.9 0.9 4.2 TABLE 53: El Dorado County Transit Authority SRTP - Estimated Ridership Net Ridership Plan Element Base Case Ridership Service Plan Elements All Figures in Thousands Note 1: This analysis assumes that ridership will increase at the same rate as anticipated population growth (2.2 percent). Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 212 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
Total 5-Year Plan FY12-13 Projected FY11-12 Projected FY10-11 Projected FY09-10 Projected $0.0 $0.0$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $58.0$0.0 $0.0$0.0 $1.3$0.0 $58.0 $0.0 $0.0$0.0 $24.4 $1.7$1.0 $15.8 $17.9 $0.0 $24.4$3.4 $1.9 $16.2 $1.0 $18.4 $29.3 $3.4 $16.8 $1.9 $19.0 $1.0 $29.3 $3.4 $19.5 $48.7 $1.0 $107.4 $6.9 $3.4 $74.8 $1.0 $3.4 $5.0 $17.0 $0.0 $11.8 $14.4$4.4 $16.6 $4.5 $17.1 $4.7 $59.9 $4.8 $5.0 $23.4 $3.5 $4.1 $4.2 $4.3 $0.0 $16.1 -$0.2 -$0.2 -$0.2 -$0.2 -$0.2 -$1.2 -$4.2 -$4.8 -$5.3 -$5.5 -$5.5 -$25.3 $29.4 $41.3 $47.3 $48.6 $50.1 $216.6 FY08-09 Projected $0.0 $38.8 $106.2 $131.7 $141.3 $198.2 $616.2 $821.5 $881.0 $969.5 $1,016.7 $1,048.4 $1,128.2 $5,043.8 $821.5 $842.2 $863.3 $885.0 $907.2 $929.9 $4,427.5 FY07-08 Projected Implement Community -- Express Route Plan Combine Placerville Express and Pollock Pines Routes Sunday Taxicab Subsidy Program Modify Placerville Routes to Serve New Developments Shift Iron Point Connector Schedule to Better Serve Commute TimesServe Casino on Iron Point Connector Route Eliminate South County Service $1.5Georgetown -- Cool Auburn Service Expand Dial-A-Ride $1.7Increased Dial-A-Ride Fares Increase Local Route Base Fare $1.9Increase Senior Day Care Daily Fare $1.9Increase Zone A and B Dial-A-Ride Fares Establish Discount Elderly/Disabled IPC Fare $1.9Subtotal Plan Elements $8.9 Implement El Dorado Hills Deviated Fixed Route TABLE 54: El Dorado County Transit Authority SRTP - Estimated Farebox Revenues Net Farebox Revenues Service Plan Elements Plan Element Base Case(Excluding Contract Service Revenues) All Figures in Thousands Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 213
$49.9 $958.3 $219.9 $352.4 Total $4,713.2 5-Year Plan FY12-13 Projected FY11-12 Projected FY10-11 Projected FY09-10 Projected 61200 9 70200 9 10010 2 40111 7 01000 1 $0.0 $26.5$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,134.3 $0.0 $0.0 $26.5 $0.0 $1,134.3 $0.0 $0.0 $755.1 $0.0 $0.0 $755.1 $0.0 $49.9 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $46.1 $47.5 $0.0 $40.9 $0.0 $134.5 $650.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $650.0 $153.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $153.0 $735.4 $0.0$105.1 $222.9 $0.0$193.6 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $114.8 $51.4 $0.0 $52.9 $54.5 $4,973.2 $654.4 $3,256.3 $208.6 $54.5 $9,147.1 FY08-09 $3,090.0 $530.5 $1,092.7 $0.0 $0.0 Projected (1) Number of Buses Number of Buses Number of Buses Number of Vans Number of Vans Total Cost Total Cost Total Cost Total Cost Total Cost TABLE 55: El Dorado County Transit Authority SRTP Capital Plan Replacement Staff Car On-Board Surveillance & Other Security Improvements Central Transit Center Bass Lake Multimodal Facility Missouri Flat Transit Center Bus Shelters / Stop Improvements Total Capital Plan Elements Plan Element 45-Psgr Replacement Buses 22-Psgr Replacement Buses 22-Psgr Expansion Buses 4-Psgr Replacement Minivans 4-Psgr Expansion Minivan All Figures in Thousands Note 1: All costs include 3 percent annual inflation. Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 214 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
The results of Tables 52 through 55 were used to develop the Financial Plan, as presented for each of the five years of the Short Range Transit Plan period in Table 56. This Financial Plan incorporates the following funding sources:
Local Transportation Funds (LTF) are the key local source of transit operating funds, currently generating roughly two-thirds of the funds used to operate services. Unfortunately, the trend in these sales-tax-based LTF revenues generated each year that are available for EDCTA has declined over the last year, and is forecast by the county auditor to decline further in FY 2008/09. This can be attributed to the overall drop in the national economy, as well as the loss of several major businesses (though new stores have opened recently). Excluding carryover funds as well as LTF funds allocated to other purposes (such as fund administration, Tahoe transit programs, and bicycle programs), LTF annual income available to EDCTA has declined from a high of $3,965,013 in FY 2006/07 to an estimate of $3,706,607 in FY 2007/08 and a forecast of $3,555,073 in FY 2008/09. As shown in Figure 39, this represents a 10.3 percent drop in annual revenues in only two years. (Note that the use of carryover funds has “cushioned” the impact of this decline in the FY 2007/08 fiscal year.) This plan assumes that the decline will cease by the end of the FY 2008/09 fiscal year, but that future increases will be more moderate than those of the past. A 3 percent growth rate in subsequent years is assumed in this plan, reflecting inflation and growth in population.
State Transit Assistance (STA) funding is assumed to increase by 3 percent per year from the current (FY 2007/08) level.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5311 funds for FY 2008/09 and 2009/10 are based on Caltrans estimates and are assumed to increase by 3 percent per year in subsequent years. Funds are largely allocated for the Central Transit Center in FY 2008/09, but otherwise are allocated for operations.
FTA Section 5310 funds estimates were provided by EDCTA based on funding levels received by the Authority in recent years, and are allocated for capital purposes.
FTA Section 5307 funds are largely allocated for purchases of vehicles for the Sacramento Commuter services. This funding source is also identified for a portion of the operating subsidies required for the US 50 Express route.
FTA Section 5316 Jobs Access and Reverse Commute funds are allocated for a portion of the US 50 Express route subsidy requirements.
Interest income is assumed to equal a consistent $150,000 per year.
Contract and miscellaneous revenues are assumed to increase with the assumed 3 percent rate of inflation.
AB 2766 Vehicle Air Pollution Fees allocated through the El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District are assumed to continue to fund the Apple Hill and County Fair shuttle programs, and to increase by the rate of inflation. Note that “Spare the Air” funds to replace fares on high ozone days are not included.
Proposition 1B PTMISEA (Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement and Service Enhancement Account) funds are allocated to fund bus purchases.
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 215
TABLE 56: El Dorado County Transit Authority SRTP Financial Plan All Figures in Thousands Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 5-Year Plan FY08-09 FY09-10 FY10-11 FY11-12 FY12-13 Total OPERATING PLAN Base Case Costs $5,816.7 $5,991.2 $6,170.9 $6,356.1 $6,546.8 $30,881.7 Operating Plan Elements (From Table 49) ($44.2) $130.9 $425.4 $439.6 $1,178.0 $2,129.8 Total Operating Costs $5,772.5 $6,122.2 $6,596.4 $6,795.7 $7,724.7 $33,011.5 Operating Revenues Passenger Fares (From Table 51) $881.0 $969.5 $1,016.7 $1,048.4 $1,128.2 $5,043.8 Annual LTF Operating Revenues $3,555.1 $3,661.7 $3,771.6 $3,884.7 $4,001.3 $18,874.4 Annual STA Operating Revenues $844.0 $869.3 $895.4 $922.3 $949.9 $4,481.0 FTA Section 5311 $24.3 $491.4 $506.1 $521.3 $537.0 $2,080.1 FTA 5307 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $329.4 $329.4 FTA 5316 - JARC $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $219.6 $219.6 Interest $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $150.0 $750.0 Contract Revenues $296.6 $305.5 $314.7 $324.1 $333.9 $1,574.9 Miscellaneous $2.1 $2.1 $2.2 $2.3 $2.3 $10.9 AB 2766 Air Quality Mitigation Funds $65.0 $66.9 $69.0 $71.0 $73.2 $345.1 Total Operating Revenues $5,818.0 $6,516.6 $6,725.6 $6,924.2 $7,724.7 $33,709.2 Annual Balance: Transfer to Capital Fund $45.5 $394.4 $129.3 $128.5 $0.0 CAPITAL PLAN Capital Costs (From Table 52) $4,973.2 $654.4 $3,256.3 $208.6 $54.5 $9,147.1 Capital Revenues Capital Fund $741.2 $0.0 $997.4 $0.0 $0.0 $1,738.6 FTA Section 5307 $1,482.4 $0.0 $483.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1,965.4 FTA Section 5310 $616.0 $522.7 $364.8 $364.8 $364.8 $2,233.1 FTA Section 5311 $440.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $440.5 Proposition 1B PTMISEA $1,254.7 $179.2 $1,284.5 $0.0 $0.0 $2,718.4 Proposition 1B CTSGP $125.5 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $125.5 Sacramento County STIP $312.9 $52.1 $126.6 $0.0 $0.0 $491.6 Total Capital Revenues $4,973.2 $754.1 $3,256.3 $364.8 $364.8 $9,713.2 Capital Fund Balance Beginning Balance $1,388.1 $692.4 $1,086.8 $218.7 $347.2 Income -- Transfer from Operating Revenues $45.5 $394.4 $129.3 $128.5 $0.0 Expenses ($741.2) $0.0 ($997.4) $0.0 $0.0 Ending Balance $692.4 $1,086.8 $218.7 $347.2 $347.2 Section 5307 Fund Balance Beginning Balance $2,805.5 $1,667.6 $2,022.4 $1,904.9 $2,281.3 Income $344.5 $354.8 $365.5 $376.4 $387.7 Expenses ($1,482.4) $0.0 ($483.0) $0.0 ($329.4) Ending Balance $1,667.6 $2,022.4 $1,904.9 $2,281.3 $2,339.6 LTF - Local Transportation Funds STA - State Transit Assistance FTA - Federal Transit Adminisistration PTMISEA - Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement and Service Enhancement Account CTSGP - California Transit Security Grant Program Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 216 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
$3,555,075 $3,706,607 $3,965,013 FIGURE 39 $3,522,824 Annual LTF Revenue Available $2,708,069 to El Dorado County Transit Authority $2,272,892 FY 2003/04 FY 2004/05 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 $- $500,000 $4,500,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 217
Proposition 1B CTSGP (California Transit Security Grant Program) funds are allocated for in-vehicle and facility security improvements.
Sacramento County State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds are assumed to provide a portion of the funds used for purchase of new Sacramento Commuter bus programs.
The financial plan presented in Table 56 first allocates all TDA funds (LTF and STA) to operating programs. Excess operating funds are then allocated to the Capital Fund. As presented in the bottom portion of Table 56, this analysis indicates that positive fund balances can be maintained through the plan period for both the Capital Fund and the Section 5307 Fund. The Capital Fund is forecast to have a minimum balance of $218,700.
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
FY 2008/09
Combine Placerville Express and Pollock Pines Routes Modify Placerville East and West Routes to Serve New Developments Shift IPC Service to Better Serve Commute Times Serve Red Hawk Casino on IPC Refine route, schedule and bus stop locations for El Dorado Hills Route Eliminate the South County Service Prepare Request For Proposals for Georgetown – Cool – Auburn Service Prepare Request For Proposals for Sunday Taxicab Subsidy Program Modify El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park DAR zone fares Establish discount Elderly/Disabled fare on IPC Increase Senior Day Care fare Conduct review of Local Route transfer use Develop improved marketing materials Purchase a total of 18 vehicles for replacement/expansion, including one bus for the El Dorado Hills route Implement Retired Vehicle Donation Program Install new bus stop shelters and benches Construct Central Transit Center Implement security improvements
FY 2009/10
Initiate El Dorado Hills Route Replace Sunday DAR Service with Sunday Taxicab Subsidy Program Initiate contracted Georgetown – Cool – Auburn Service Increase Local Route and DAR Fares Conduct expanded marketing efforts Conduct site selection and preliminary design study for Missouri Flat Transit Center Purchase one replacement commuter bus plus one van for DAR expansion, and replace a staff car Install new bus stop shelters and benches
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Western El Dorado County Page 218 2008 Short Range Transit Plan
FY 2010/11
Expand DAR Purchase a total of five replacement vehicles Construct Missouri Flat Transit Center Conduct expanded marketing efforts Construct Bass Lake Multimodal Facility
FY 2011/12
Finalize schedules and transfer points for US 50 Express Route and modified Local Routes Purchase one expansion bus and one replacement van Conduct expanded marketing efforts
FY 2012/13
Implement Community/Express Route Plan Purchase one replacement van Conduct expanded marketing efforts Prepare updated Short Range Transit Plan
Western El Dorado County LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2008 Short Range Transit Plan Page 219