PLACER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY

CITY OF ROSEVILLE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

FINAL REPORT

SEPTEMBER 2011 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Placer County Transportation Planning Agency City of Roseville Short Range Transit Plan

FINAL REPORT September 2011

Prepared for the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency 299 Nevada Street, Auburn, CA 95603

Prepared by Moore & Associates, Inc. 28159 Avenue Stanford, Suite 110, Valencia, CA 91355 661.253.1277

Roseville City Council Pauline Roccucci, Mayor Susan Rohan, Vice Mayor Carol Garcia, Council Member John Allard, Council Member Tim Herman, Council Member

Client Staff David Melko, Senior Transportation Planner, PCTPA Mike Wixon, Alternative Transportation Manager, City of Roseville Eileen Bruggeman, Transportation Analyst, City of Roseville

Consultant Staff Jim Moore, Project Manager Michael Eshleman, Senior Planner Jennifer Arizala, Assistant Planner

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE i CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE ii CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY [001]

2. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS [013] 2.1 Regional Goals [015] 2.2 Performance Measurement System [015]

3. SERVICE PLAN [021] 3.1 Preferred Alternatives [023] 3.2 Capital and Financial Plans [049] 3.3 Implementation Plan [078]

4. APPENDIX [085]

APPENDIX A: EXISTING CONDITIONS [085] A.1 Demographic Analysis [087] A.2 Service Evaluation [105] A.3 Ride Check Analysis [140] A.4 Transfer Analysis [180] A.5 Marketing Assessment [192]

APPENDIX B: PUBLIC INPUT [197] B.1 Onboard Survey Analysis [199] B.2 Community Survey Analysis [224] B.3 Public Workshops [244]

APPENDIX C: SURVEY INSTRUMENTS [245] APPENDIX D: COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS (ENGLISH) [249] APPENDIX E: PEER REVIEW [263]

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE iii CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

EXHIBITS Exhibit 2.2.1 Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards ...... 18 Exhibit 3.1.1 Proposed Placer County Transit alignment and Roseville Route G…………………..25 Exhibit 3.1.2 Proposed Route S Alignment ...... 34 Exhibit 3.1.3 Proposed Route G Alignment ...... 35 Exhibit 3.1.4 Proposed Route C Alignment ...... 37 Exhibit 3.1.5 Section 8 Housing and Roseville Routes ...... 38 Exhibit 3.1.6 Section 8 Housing and Roseville Routes ...... 39 Exhibit 3.1.7 Proposed Route M Alignment ...... 41 Exhibit 3.1.8 Proposed Route D Alignment ...... 42 Exhibit 3.1.9 Proposed Route R Alignment ...... 43 Exhibit 3.1.10 Proposed Route L Alignment ...... 44 Exhibit 3.1.11 Proposed Western Roseville Route Alignment ...... 45 Exhibit 3.1.12 Priority of Implementation (Recommendations) ...... 48 Exhibit 3.2.1 Fixed-Route Fleet List...... 50 Exhibit 3.2.2 Commuter Service Fleet List ...... 51 Exhibit 3.2.3 Dial-A-Ride Fleet List ...... 51 Exhibit 3.2.4 City Transit Vehicle Fleet List ...... 52 Exhibit 3.2.5 Number of Peak-Hour Buses by Scenario ...... 53 Exhibit 3.2.6 Proposed Fleet Replacement Strategy ...... 55 Exhibit 3.2.7 Additional Bus Purchase Schedule……………………………………………………………………55 Exhibit 3.2.8 Proposed Stops for Alternative B Recommendations ...... 59 Exhibit 3.2.9 Capital Plan ...... 65 Exhibit 3.2.10 Summary of Alternative A Impact and Cost ...... 68 Exhibit 3.2.11 Impact on Farebox Recovery (Fixed-Route) ...... 68 Exhibit 3.2.12 Impact on Farebox Recovery (Dial-A-Ride) ...... 69 Exhibit 3.2.13 Impact on Farebox Recovery (Commuter Service) ...... 69 Exhibit 3.2.14 Alternative A Operating Cost per Year of Implementation ...... 70 Exhibit 3.2.15 Alternative A Financial Plan ...... 71 Exhibit 3.2.16 Summary of Alternative B Changes and Costs ...... 72 Exhibit 3.2.17 Alternative B Operating Cost per Year of Implementation ...... 73 Exhibit 3.2.18 Impact on Farebox Recovery (Fixed-Route) ...... 74 Exhibit 3.2.19 Impact on Farebox Recovery (Dial-A-Ride) ...... 74 Exhibit 3.2.20 Impact on Farebox Recovery (Commuter Service) ...... 74 Exhibit 3.2.21 Alternative B Financial Plan ...... 76 Exhibit 3.2.22 Operating Funding Source Matrix ...... 77 Exhibit 3.2.23 Capital Funding Source Matrix ...... 78 Exhibit 3.3.1 Preferred Implementation Schedule A ...... 79 Exhibit 3.3.2 Preferred Implementation Schedule B ...... 83 Exhibit A.1.1 City of Roseville and Transit Route Map ...... 87 Exhibit A.1.2 Mobility Inventory ...... 88 Exhibit A.1.3 Summary of Roseville Demographic Characteristics ...... 89 Exhibit A.1.4 Summary of Roseville Economic Characteristics ...... 90 Exhibit A.1.5 Summary of Roseville Housing Characteristics ...... 90 Exhibit A.1.6 Population Growth ...... 91

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE iv CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.1.7 Neighborhood Association Boundaries ...... 92 Exhibit A.1.8 Population by Census Block ...... 93 Exhibit A.1.9 Youth Population Growth ...... 94 Exhibit A.1.10 Youth Population by Census Block...... 95 Exhibit A.1.11 Senior Population Growth ...... 95 Exhibit A.1.12 Senior Population by Census Block ...... 96 Exhibit A.1.13 Persons with Disabilities Population Growth ...... 97 Exhibit A.1.14 Persons with Disabilities by Census Block ...... 98 Exhibit A.1.15 Low-Income Population Growth ...... 99 Exhibit A.1.16 Low-Income Population by Census Block ...... 99 Exhibit A.1.17 Zero Vehicle Households ...... 100 Exhibit A.1.18 Zero Vehicle Households by Census Block ...... 101 Exhibit A.1.19 Transit Index Map ...... 102 Exhibit A.1.20 Top Ten Key Trip Generators ...... 103 Exhibit A.1.21 Trip Generators ...... 104 Exhibit A.2.1 Roseville Local Transit Service Hours ...... 109 Exhibit A.2.2 Roseville Commuter Bus Service Hours ...... 110 Exhibit A.2.3 Dial-A-Ride Service Hours ...... 110 Exhibit A.2.4 Roseville Local Transit Fare Structure ...... 111 Exhibit A.2.5 Roseville Transit Commuter Service Fare Structure ...... 112 Exhibit A.2.6 Roseville Transit Dial-A-Ride Fare Structure ...... 113 Exhibit A.2.7 Roseville Transit Organizational Chart ...... 114 Exhibit A.2.8 System-wide Performance Indicators ...... 117 Exhibit A.2.9 System-wide Ridership ...... 120 Exhibit A.2.10 System-wide Passenger/VSH ...... 120 Exhibit A.2.11 System-wide Passengers/VSM ...... 120 Exhibit A.2.12 System-wide Operating Cost/VSH ...... 120 Exhibit A.2.13 System-wide Operating Cost/VSM ...... 121 Exhibit A.2.14 System-wide Operating Cost/Passenger ...... 121 Exhibit A.2.15 System-wide Farebox Recovery Ratio ...... 121 Exhibit A.2.16 System-wide Fare/Passenger ...... 121 Exhibit A.2.17 Fixed-Route Performance Indicators ...... 122 Exhibit A.2.18 Fixed Route Ridership ...... 126 Exhibit A.2.19 Fixed-Route Ridership by Route ...... 126 Exhibit A.2.20 Fixed-Route Passengers/VSH ...... 126 Exhibit A.2.21 Fixed-Route Passengers/VSH by Route ...... 126 Exhibit A.2.22 Fixed-Route Passengers/VSM ...... 127 Exhibit A.2.23 Fixed-Route Operating Cost/VSH ...... 127 Exhibit A.2.24 Fixed-Route Operating Cost/VSM ...... 127 Exhibit A.2.25 Fixed-Route Operating Cost/Passenger ...... 127 Exhibit A.2.26 Fixed-Route Farebox Recovery Ratio ...... 128 Exhibit A.2.27 Fixed-Route Fare/Passenger ...... 128 Exhibit A.2.28 Commuter Service Performance...... 129 Exhibit A.2.29 Commuter Service Annual Ridership ...... 132 Exhibit A.2.30 Commuter Service Passengers/VSH ...... 132 Exhibit A.2.31 Commuter Service Passengers/VSM...... 132 Exhibit A.2.32 Commuter Service Operating Cost/VSH ...... 132 Exhibit A.2.33 Commuter Service Operating Cost/VSM ...... 133

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE v CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.2.34 Commuter Service Operating Cost/Passenger ...... 133 Exhibit A.2.35 Commuter Service Farebox Recovery ...... 133 Exhibit A.2.36 Commuter Service Fare/Passenger ...... 133 Exhibit A.2.37 Dial-A-Ride Performance ...... 134 Exhibit A.2.38 Dial-A-Ride Annual Ridership ...... 137 Exhibit A.2.39 Dial-A-Ride Passengers/VSH ...... 137 Exhibit A.2.40 Dial-A-Ride Passengers/VSM ...... 137 Exhibit A.2.41 Dial-A-Ride Operating Cost/VSH ...... 137 Exhibit A.2.42 Dial-A-Ride Operating Cost/VSM ...... 138 Exhibit A.2.43 Dial-A-Ride Operating Cost/Passenger ...... 138 Exhibit A.2.44 Dial-A-Ride Farebox Recovery Ratio ...... 138 Exhibit A.2.45 Dial-A-Ride Fare/Passenger ...... 138 Exhibit A.3.1 Overall On-Time Performance by Day-Part ...... 142 Exhibit A.3.2 Overall On-Time Performance by Route and Day-Part ...... 144 Exhibit A.3.3 Overall On-Time Performance by Route and Trip Segment ...... 144 Exhibit A.3.4 Weekday On-time Performance by Trip Segment ...... 145 Exhibit A.3.5 Overall On-Time Performance by Route ...... 145 Exhibit A.3.6 System Boarding Averages by Day-Part ...... 147 Exhibit A.3.7 Route Boarding Averages by Day-Part ...... 148 Exhibit A.3.8 System Alighting Averages by Day-Part ...... 149 Exhibit A.3.9 Route Alighting by Day-Part ...... 150 Exhibit A.3.10 Route A Activity by Day-Part ...... 151 Exhibit A.3.11 Route A Saturday Activity by Day-Part ...... 151 Exhibit A.3.12 Route A Highest Boarding Stops ...... 152 Exhibit A.3.13 Route A Highest Alighting Stops ...... 152 Exhibit A.3.14 Route A Boardings and Alightings ...... 153 Exhibit A.3.15 Route B Total Activity by Day-Part ...... 154 Exhibit A.3.16 Route B Saturday Activity by Day-Part...... 155 Exhibit A.3.17 Route B Highest Boarding Stops ...... 155 Exhibit A.3.18 Route B Highest Alighting Stops ...... 155 Exhibit A.3.19 Route B Boardings and Alighting ...... 156 Exhibit A.3.20 Route C Total Activity by Day-Part ...... 157 Exhibit A.3.21 Route C Saturday Activity by Day-Part ...... 158 Exhibit A.3.22 Route C Highest Boarding Stops ...... 158 Exhibit A.3.23 Route C Highest Alighting Stops ...... 158 Exhibit A.3.24 Route C Boardings and Alightings ...... 159 Exhibit A.3.25 Route D Total Activity by Day-Part ...... 160 Exhibit A.3.26 Route D Saturday Activity by Day-Part ...... 161 Exhibit A.3.27 Route D Boardings ...... 161 Exhibit A.3.28 Route D Alighting Stops ...... 161 Exhibit A.3.29 Route D Boardings and Alightings ...... 162 Exhibit A.3.30 Route G Activity by Day-Part ...... 163 Exhibit A.3.31 Route G Saturday Activity by Day-Part ...... 164 Exhibit A.3.32 Route G Boarding Stops ...... 164 Exhibit A.3.32 Route G Alighting Stops ...... 164 Exhibit A.3.34 Route G Boardings and Alightings ...... 165 Exhibit A.3.35 Route I Activity by Day-Part ...... 166 Exhibit A.3.36 Route I Saturday Activity by Day-Part ...... 167

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE vi CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.3.37 Route I Boarding Stops ...... 167 Exhibit A.3.37 Route I Alighting Stops ...... 167 Exhibit A.3.39 Route I Boardings and Alightings ...... 168 Exhibit A.3.40 Route L Activity by Day-Part ...... 169 Exhibit A.3.41 Route L Saturday Activity by Day-Part ...... 169 Exhibit A.3.42 Route L Boarding Stops ...... 170 Exhibit A.3.42 Route L Alighting Stops ...... 170 Exhibit A.3.44 Route L Boardings and Alighting ...... 171 Exhibit A.3.45 Route M Activity by Day-Part...... 173 Exhibit A.3.46 Route M Saturday Activity by Day-Part ...... 173 Exhibit A.3.47 Route M Boarding Stops ...... 173 Exhibit A.3.47 Route M Alighting Stops ...... 173 Exhibit A.3.49 Route M Boardings and Alightings...... 174 Exhibit A.3.50 Route R Activity by Day-Part ...... 175 Exhibit A.3.51 Route R Highest Boarding Stops ...... 176 Exhibit A.3.51 Route R Highest Alighting Stops ...... 176 Exhibit A.3.52 Route R Highest Alighting Stops ...... 176 Exhibit A.3.53 Route R Boardings and Alightings ...... 176 Exhibit A.3.54 Route S Activity by Day-Part ...... 177 Exhibit A.3.55 Overall Boarding and Alighting by Stop ...... 177 Exhibit A.3.56 Route S Boardings and Alightings ...... 178 Exhibit A.4.1 Transfer Activity by Day-Part and Location ...... 181 Exhibit A.4.2 Overall Transfer Activity by Day-Part ...... 182 Exhibit A.4.3 Percent Transfer Activity by Route and Transfer Point ...... 183 Exhibit A.4.4 Connections at Transfer Points ...... 184 Exhibit A.4.5 Origin and Destination ...... 186 Exhibit A.4.6 Civic Center Percent of Transfer Activity by Route ...... 188 Exhibit A.4.7 Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd Percent of Activity by Route ...... 189 Exhibit A.4.8 Sierra Gardens Percent of Activity by Route ...... 190 Exhibit A.4.9 Galleria Percent of Activity by Route ...... 191 Exhibit B.1.1 Respondent Age ...... 200 Exhibit B.1.2 Employment Status ...... 201 Exhibit B.1.3 Employment Status vs. Frequency of Transit Use ...... 202 Exhibit B.1.4 Household Income ...... 203 Exhibit B.1.5 Frequency of Transit Use vs. Household Income...... 204 Exhibit B.1.6 Trip Purpose ...... 205 Exhibit B.1.7 Frequency of Transit Use vs. Trip Purpose ...... 206 Exhibit B.1.8 Transit Influences ...... 207 Exhibit B.1.9 Frequency of Transit Use vs. Transit Influencers ...... 208 Exhibit B.1.10 Frequency of Transit Use ...... 209 Exhibit B.1.11 Length of Patronage ...... 210 Exhibit B.1.12 Length of Patronage vs. Frequency of Transit Use ...... 211 Exhibit B.1.13 Transit Accessibility ...... 212 Exhibit B.1.14 Transfer Activity ...... 213 Exhibit B.1.15 Mobility Alternatives ...... 213 Exhibit B.1.16 Fare Category ...... 214 Exhibit B.1.17 Fare Type ...... 215 Exhibit B.1.18 Frequency of Transit Use vs. Fare Type ...... 216

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE vii CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit B.1.19 Customer Satisfaction ...... 217 Exhibit B.1.20 Preferred Enhancements ...... 218 Exhibit B.1.21 Frequency of Transit Use vs. Preferred Enhancements ...... 219 Exhibit B.1.22 Impact on Ridership ...... 220 Exhibit B.1.23 Support for Fare Increase ...... 221 Exhibit B.1.24 Information Channels ...... 222 Exhibit B.2.1 Respondent Age vs. Use of Roseville Transit ...... 226 Exhibit B.2.2 Most Comment Travel Destination vs. Transit Patronage ...... 227 Exhibit B.2.3 Frequency of Travel vs. Most Common Trip Purpose ...... 228 Exhibit B.2.4 Most Common Trip Purpose vs. Mode of Travel ...... 229 Exhibit B.2.5 Customer Satisfaction ...... 230 Exhibit B.2.6 Selection Motivation ...... 231 Exhibit B.2.7 Frequency of Transit Use vs. Selection Motivation ...... 232 Exhibit B.2.8 Typical Trip Purpose vs. Frequency of Transit Use ...... 233 Exhibit B.2.9 Barriers to Transit Use ...... 234 Exhibit B.2.10 Desired Service Change or Improvement ...... 235 Exhibit B.2.11 Additional Weekly Trips from Non-Riders ...... 236 Exhibit B.2.12 Barriers to Transit Use vs. Service Improvements ...... 237 Exhibit B.2.13 Rider Preference for Service Improvements ...... 238 Exhibit B.2.14 Additional Weekly Trips by Community ...... 239 Exhibit B.2.15 Preferred Service Improvement by Age ...... 240 Exhibit B.2.16 Additional Weekly Trips by Age ...... 241 Exhibit B.2.17 Preferred Service Improvement and Employment Status vs. Age ...... 242

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE viii CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

1. EXECUTIVE 12. SUMMARY

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 1 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 2 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

CHAPTER 1.0 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) is to objectively and comprehensively evaluate the City of Roseville’s public transit program’s performance, identify and quantify transit demand, and identify strategies for enhancing community mobility.

Moore & Associates was retained by the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA) in 2010 to conduct SRTPs for the western Placer County cities of Roseville and Auburn, as well as Placer County Transit. Through conducting the three SRTPs concurrently, PCTPA seeks to enhance regional coordination among the transit operators and focus transportation resources throughout the region in an efficient and effective manner.

The City of Roseville operates Roseville Transit which includes a fixed-route service, commuter service, and Dial-A-Ride program. Roseville Transit consists of 10 fixed-route alignments serving Roseville weekdays, between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and Saturday, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The City has four main transfer points (Sierra Garden, Civic Center, Louis Lane/Orlando Avenue, and Roseville Galleria Mall) which provide opportunities for connections between Roseville Transit and various transit operators (Auburn Transit, Placer County Transit, Sacramento Regional Transit, and Lincoln Transit). The Dial-A-Ride program complements the fixed-route service in coverage and service hours. Roseville’s commuter service provides nine morning and evening trips respectively to/from downtown Sacramento during peak-commute hours.

Title VI Compliance As part of the six-county region governed by the Sacramento Council of Governments, investments made by the City of Roseville must be consistent with federal Title VI requirements. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, income, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Public outreach to and involvement of individuals in low income and minority communities covered under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and subsequent Civil Rights Restoration Act, and series federal statutes enacted pertaining to environmental justice, are critical to regional planning and programming decisions. The fundamental principles of environmental justice include:  Avoiding, minimizing or mitigating disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental effects on minority and low-income population;  Ensuring full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision-making process; and  Preventing the denial, reduction or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority populations and low-income communities.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 3 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

The decision process by which new projects are selected for inclusion in the Short Range Transit Plan must consider equitable solicitation of project candidates in accordance with federal Title VI requirements.1

Short Range Transit Plan Process On July 15, 2010 Moore & Associates conducted a project initiation meeting with PCTPA and representatives from each public transit operators. The kick-off meeting included review of the project schedule, discussed project expectations, defined project success, and presented schedule of deliverables.

Our project team conducted customer surveys and ride checks onboard Roseville Transit between September 28, 2010 and October 2, 2010. Community workshops were held on November 2 and 3 in 2010 in conjunction with PCTPA’s “unmet transit needs" public hearings. In total, five meetings were held throughout the county; in Auburn, Lincoln, Loomis, Rocklin, and Roseville. These meetings served as an opportunity for residents to participate in the transit service planning process and to provide input.

Moore & Associates utilized demographic and population data (Census Bureau data), economic data (California Department of Finance), rider and non-rider (community) survey data, and information gathered from community meetings to identify service gaps in mobility needs, accessibility, and community perception. Our project team analyzed the existing transit system to generate recommendations which sought to find a balance of productivity and coverage. In addition, operations and performance data were provided by the City and collected through field observations to assess transit performance based on specific indicators such as operating cost per passenger.

The Short Range Transit Plan is divided into three chapters (i.e., Executive Summary; Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards; and Service Plan) and an Appendix includes three sections (i.e., Existing Conditions, Public Input, and Peer Review) focused on presenting collected data, insightful analysis, and recommendations intended to enhance the transit services managed by the City of Roseville. The following narrative presents a brief summary and findings of each chapter or section.

The Performance Measurement System is the foundation for developing the Short Range Transit Plan. In addition to the Performance Measurement System, we developed regional and local goals for Roseville. These goals assess the actual performance of the public transit programs (i.e., fixed- route, dial-a-ride, and commuter service) provided by the City within the framework performance standards and goals.

1Sacramento Area Council of Governments. 2010. Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program 2011/14. (September 9, 2010).

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 4 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

3.0 Service Plan The purpose of the Service Plan chapter is to present our recommendations based on the key finding generated from our assessment of the service as well as other performance data revealed through public involvement activities. The Service Plan chapter is divided into three sections: highlighting enhancement alternatives, capital and financial impacts with each funding scenarios, and implementation of proposed enhancement scenarios. Two scenarios were developed – a status quo scenario with minor improvements (Alternative A) and scenario including additional operational and capital improvements to the existing transit network (Alternative B). Each alternative includes some level of operational, administrative, capital, and marketing enhancements.

Alternative A presents a low-cost scenario recommending the implementation of minor operational and administrative enhancements to maximize the effectiveness of service within existing resources. This alternative is meant to address the customer and community input and observations made in the most cost-effective manner. Alternative A seeks to improve the experience and image of Roseville Transit for both riders and non-riders. Alternative A recommendations include:  Adjust wait/transfer times.  Extend hours of operation.  Modify operating schedules.  Enhance connections with Placer County Transit  Introduce “new route” policy.  Conduct Park & Ride Feasibility study.  Conduct Transfer Point Locational study.  Conduct Service Optimization study.  Conduct annual Community Survey.  Enhance Route G connection to PCT Taylor Road Shuttle extension.  Increase farebox recovery ratio standard.

There are advantages and disadvantages to every change implemented within a transit program. Disadvantages will typically include the cost of the enhancement and increases to Vehicle Service Miles and Vehicle Service Hours. For this alternative, the disadvantages mainly include an increase in marketing and short-term administrative costs. Foreseeable advantages include:

Advantages  High probability of ridership growth, especially during evening hours.  Retain familiarity to current riders.  Improved on-time performance.  Increase in ridership.  Increase in fare revenue.  Increase in service connectivity and coordination.  Low-cost relative to the other service scenario.  Increased customer satisfaction.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 5 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

 Increase student ridership on Roseville Transit service.

Alternative B incorporates the recommendations made in Alternative A plus additional capital/infrastructure and schedule improvements. This alternative seeks to enhance the existing service through expansion of existing services through introduction of new routes to provide transportation options to underserved areas, elimination and extensions of existing routes/route segments, as well as improvement of bus stop visibility through recommending the replacement of all bus stop signs with more visible and identifiable signage. The following are all the recommendations under Alternative B include:  Establish new stops along Route S.  Increase off-peak hour frequencies on select routes.  Reduce Route G and I runs during the late afternoon.  Assume operation of Placer County Transit Dial-A-Ride services.  Expand service to new and existing developments.  Consider Extending Service South Along the I-80 Corridor  Include Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd stop as a West Roseville Shuttle stop.  Modify Route M.  Extend Route R.  Introduce Western Roseville route.  Enhance bus stop amenities and transfer points.

For this alternative, the disadvantages include an increase in capital, operational, and marketing costs, with possible short-term drop in farebox recovery while new services take root. Foreseeable advantages include:

Advantages  Ridership and revenue growth.  Improved on-time performance.  Increased customer satisfaction.  Increase service connectivity and coordination.  Enhanced awareness and ridership in previously “underserved” areas.  Increased customer awareness of Roseville Transit.  Reduction in service overlap.  Increased student ridership.  Enhanced amenities at customer wait areas.  Reduced transfer penalty/wait times.

Appendix A: Existing Conditions The cornerstone goal of the Existing Conditions section is to assess the current climate by quantifying actual performance and analyzing recent data (i.e., on-time performance and boarding and alighting data) collected during ride checks and field observations. This chapter – presented in

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 6 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

as Appendix A – is divided into five sections: Demographic Analysis, Service Evaluation, Ride Check Analysis, Transfer Analysis, and Marketing Assessment. Below is a list of key findings from these sections.

A.1 Demographic Analysis  Residents living within the more densely populated areas are served by Roseville Transit Lines R, S, M, D, and I; while communities located further north of these lines – Blue Oaks, Quail Glen, and Sun City – are beyond reasonable walking distance of Roseville Transit alignments (Exhibit A.1.8).  The greatest concentration of youth resides within the highest populated area north of Junction Blvd, east of Washington Street, west of Fiddyment Road, and north of Baseline Road (Exhibit A.1.10).  The highest concentration of seniors resides in Sun City near the Sun City Roseville Golf Course and alongside Del Webb Blvd, also known as an “active adult community (55+)” specifically tailored to the senior population (Exhibit A.1.12)  Similar to the senior population, the highest concentration of persons with disabilities reside in Sun City developments parallel to Baseline Road extending eastward to Washington Blvd and northward to Pleasant Grove Blvd (Exhibit A.1.14)  The City’s low-income population grew 82.3 percent between 2000 and 2009, likely influenced by to the economic downturn experienced across the past two years (A.1.15).  The highest concentrations of households lacking access to a personal vehicle (351 or more) are located in the communities of Maidu and Enwood, parallel to Interstate 80 (A.1.18).

A.2 Service Evaluation  The City continues to meet the TDA farebox recovery ratio of 15 percent.  Despite the economic recession, ridership has remained relatively stable.  Fixed-route service dropped by 11.3 percent in FY 2009/10, the greatest decline across the evaluation period.  The City should consider reallocating Vehicle Service Hours to more productive lines to improve cost-effectiveness.  Commuter Service had excellent farebox recovery throughout the evaluation period, but was below the farebox recovery ratios observed in the prior Short Range Transit Plan.  Performance metrics point to the Commuter Service reaching market saturation in FY 2007/08. The City may wish to consider assigning resources to other programs or reducing fares to attract additional riders.  High operating costs are the greatest threat to cost-effectiveness for the Commuter Service.  The Dial-A-Ride Service has a much higher farebox recovery rate than other providers in Placer County.  In spite of lower ridership across the system, operating costs which are a primary concern of the City of Roseville stayed relatively stable. Such may point to administrative costs being the main cause of rising system costs.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 7 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

 The variety of fare options as well as the unrestricted use of the Dial-A-Ride Service provide great flexibility and should be the focus of marketing campaigns supporting the Dial-A-Ride service.

A.3 Ride Check Analysis  Early departures or arrivals occurred approximately 12 percent of the time, rising to 13 percent during the late afternoon.  Roseville Transit was on-time 81.1 percent of the time during ride checks.  Route M had the best on-time performance compared to other Roseville routes, exceeding the 90 percent on-time performance standard across all day-parts.  Route M achieved 100 percent on-time performance during early morning, late morning, and late afternoon trips.  The highest system averages of early departures or arrivals occurred during the late morning and late afternoon day-parts.  Overall on-time performance was highest during the beginning of each trip gradually decreasing in reliability as the trip approached its end (Exhibit A.3.4).  Late departures occurred on Route D during 50 percent of trips in the early afternoon (A.3.6).  Routes A, G, and S had more early arrivals than other Roseville routes. Boarding averages dropped during the late afternoon.  Route B had the highest boarding average (13 boardings per trip) compared with all other Roseville Transit routes.  The second-highest boarding activity occurred on Route R (Exhibit A.3.7)  The service experienced a gradual increase in system alighting activity between late morning and early afternoon day-parts, dropping to about four alightings per trip during the late afternoon day-part (Exhibit A.3.8).  Routes G, I, and S produced the fewest number of boardings and alightings.  Routes A and B were the next highest in alighting activity, considerably more productive during the late morning and early afternoon than any other day part.  Routes A, B, C, D, G, I, and L had higher alighting averages during the late morning and early afternoon (off-peak hours), with the exception of routes C, L, M, R, and S; which experienced high alighting averages during other day-parts.  The highest boarding average (11.1 boardings per trip) on Route A occurred during the early afternoon, while the highest alighting (11.0 alightings per trip) occurred between 9:31 a.m. and 12:30 p.m.  Route B experienced the greatest activity during the late afternoon and early morning trips.  Route C’s boarding and alighting trends differed from overall system trends as the busiest day-parts were in the late afternoon in addition to the late morning day-part.  Route D experienced more boardings during all day-parts than alightings.  Route G’s stop activity (1.6 boardings per trip and 2.5 alightings per trip) was far less than the system’s average for boardings and alightings.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 8 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

 As illustrated in Exhibits A.3.37 and A.3.38, the greatest stop activity occurred at the Civic Center transfer point.  Route L had a similar route average as the system boarding and alighting average (5.5 boardings per trip and 5.3 alightings per trip).  Route M as one of the more productive routes.  Ridership remains relatively low on Route R.  Ride check data show Route S had higher boardings in the morning than any other day-part.

A.4 Transfer Analysis  The highest transfer activity occurred during midday or off-peak hours (between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.).  The majority of riders prefer to use Roseville Routes A, B, and D and Placer County Transit for their regional connections.  Route A and PCT connections vary from five minutes at the Roseville Galleria to 37 minutes at the Louis/Orlando transfer point.  PCT to Roseville Transit connections averaged 7.6 transfers, while connections from Roseville Transit to PCT averaged 5.8 transfers.  Transfer data reveal no activity on Routes G, I, L, and the Commuter Service.  The greatest percentage of transfers at the Civic Center transfer point occurred between routes A and D (28.6 percent). Transfer data reveal more than 50 percent of riders transferred from another Roseville route, namely Route D.  SacRT to Roseville Transit route connections comprised more than 35 percent of transfers at the Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd transfer point.  Nearly 60 percent of transfers at the Sierra Gardens transfer point occurred on Route C as the origin route. Interestingly, Route L and Route B were used more often as destination routes than other Roseville routes.  Transfers with PCT as the origin route comprised more than 41 percent of Roseville Galleria transfers, while connections between Roseville Transit and PCT (as destination trips) comprised 48 percent of transfers.

Appendix B: Public Input The Public Input chapter presents the analysis and findings collected from a variety of public involvement activities conducted across a three-month period. These activities garnered input from both the general community at-large and the current riders. The ultimate goal is community-driven recommendations for Roseville Transit. The following is a list of findings revealed from our community outreach activities.

B.1 Onboard Survey Analysis  The 17 to 25 years and 26 to 44 years categories had the highest share of survey respondents at approximately 32 percent each.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 9 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

 Approximately 36 percent of Roseville Transit riders were employed, either full-time or part- time, while nearly 24 percent indicated being a full-time student.  A relatively large portion of Roseville Transit riders indicated they were not currently employed, yet seeking work.  Nearly 79 percent indicated not having ready access to a private automobile.  Those earning less than $20,000 make up the majority of patrons for both frequent and non- frequent riders. This is a reflection of low-income individuals being a dominant rider group for Roseville Transit.  The majority of Roseville Transit riders, more specifically everyday riders, use the service for commuter-related trips (i.e., home-to-work and home-to-school).  Nearly 44 percent of respondents indicated they used the service for their trip due to a lack of other travel options, while approximately 30 percent indicated they used the service out of convenience.  More than 80 percent of riders indicated using Roseville Transit at least twice a week.  Approximately 67 percent of the respondents have patronized Roseville Transit for at least one year.  More than 40 percent of transfers were cited occurring between Roseville Transit and Placer County Transit.  Nearly 70 percent stated their trip would require at least two buses to complete, meaning they would need to transfer either to another Roseville Transit bus or another service.  The most frequent travel alternative was to walk or bicycle if Roseville Transit was not available  Approximately 64 percent of all respondents fell within the general public fare category.  More than half (58 percent) of the riders surveyed stated they paid for their trip using a single cash fare.  Frequency of use corresponded with type of fare used. Frequent riders were more likely to use the monthly pass than cash fare and the daily pass when riding Roseville Transit.  When aggregated, 85 percent of respondents held a positive view of Roseville Transit.  The top-ranked service changes were later evening service (33 percent) and more frequent service (26 percent). Two other service enhancements drew considerable interest: Sunday service (16 percent) and more routes/extended service area (14 percent).  Among “frequent riders,” Sunday service is the most preferred enhancement while “less frequent riders” desire additional Saturday service.  If the City implemented later evening service, (see Exhibit 2.1.20), approximately 4 percent of respondents who cited this improvement would make at least three additional trips per week.  Forty-four percent of respondents indicated a willingness to pay an additional twenty-five cents. However, 38 percent indicated they wouldn’t support any fare increase.  The two most popular information sources were bus drivers and information at the bus stop.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 10 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

B.2 Community Survey Analysis  While more than 98 percent of the respondents indicated an unaided awareness of the City’s public transit service, only 16 percent cited riding Roseville Transit within the 90 days prior to survey contact.  Roseville and Sacramento are the two primary work sites for the residents of Roseville. As such, Roseville Transit’s service (fixed-route and commuter service) is appropriate in meeting potential travel demand.  Survey results reveal the majority of respondents did not utilize Roseville Transit to access their destination.  The majority of respondents indicated preferring to drive themselves to their prospective destinations (50 percent to 100 percent).  Over 62 percent of survey respondents had an excellent experience on Roseville Transit with more than 37 percent citing a good experience. No respondent held unfavorable views of Roseville Transit.  The primary motivation to of those who frequently use (defined as four or more times per week) Roseville Transit is save money.  The primary barrier to using the service is a preference for driving their own car (74 percent).  Over half of non-riders stated nothing would change their minds with regard to service improvements. This suggests Roseville Transit will have great difficulty attracting “choice riders.”  The high proportion of non-riders who would not switch modes no matter the service improvement suggests Roseville Transit would be better served focusing on improving service for existing riders.  The most frequent riders (four or more times per week) cited more weekend service as the preferred service improvement.  Only the 95747 ZIP had an equal number of respondents stating no service improvement would change their mind and more frequent service.  Based on survey findings, implementation of the preferred service improvement by those residing 95747 zip code could yield between two or three additional trips per week.  The 17 to 24 years old cohort represents a potentially receptive market to Roseville Transit especially for commuting to school and/or work.  Based on Exhibits B.2.15 and B.2.16, Roseville Transit should consider more frequent service on key routes to boost ridership.  In terms of those employed outside the home (i.e., commuters), more frequent service and more service on weekends were the most favored service improvements.

B.3 Public Workshop  There is a desire for Dial-A-Ride service to go to Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) or Health & Human Services in Rocklin.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 11 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

 Concern arose regarding Dial-A-Ride driver wait times – a patron was left at their doctor’s appointment by Dial-A-Ride driver.  There is a desire to expand Roseville Transit service to Eskaton Village, a 48-unit affordable senior (ages 62 and older) housing community located in Roseville. It was noted that Route M used to service this area but has since been re-routed to service Fairway. With respect to the Lassen County example mentioned by a public workshop attendee, the request was for a service which served this area one to three times per week.  Review bus stop placement to ensure customers are able to access transit within a walkable distance.

Appendix E: Peer Review and Fare Analysis In this section we compared Roseville Transit’s performance with selected transit operators (i.e., Thousand Oaks Transit, City of Folsom, and Fairfield and Suisun Transit) through a performance peer review. In most categories, Roseville Transit performed relatively well, nearly matching each indicator (of the peer average) with often lower operating cost per performance indicator reflecting the service efficiency.

Lastly, we analyzed Roseville Transit’s existing fare structure and compared it with other transit operators located within northern California. The fare analysis concludes Roseville Transit’s fares are competitive with its peers, providing categories and pricing similar to other northern California providers, yet higher than the County’s and Auburn’s public transit programs.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 12 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

2. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, 2AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 13 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 14 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

CHAPTER 2.0 – GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

SECTION 2.1 – REGIONAL GOALS

The City of Roseville, along with other Placer County transit providers, is committed to identifying and leveraging opportunities for service coordination and optimization. The City of Roseville has taken the lead on a number of successful regional transit initiatives. The following is a list of goals for the region and local goals for the City of Roseville to be realized throughout the SRTP process.

Regional goals:  Strive to fill temporal and spatial gaps identified by the TDA Article 8 “unmet needs” public process,  Leverage regional partnerships to maximize the impact of limited resources,  Promote the use of fixed-route service among ambulatory Dial-A-Ride patrons,  Ensure consistency between route and bus stop nomenclature among operators in the region, and  Explore the introduction of new services through “pilot program” funding opportunities with partner agencies.

Roseville Goals:  Maximize the cost-effectiveness of transit service in Roseville;  Maximize the efficiency of transit services in Roseville;  Ensure transit service in Roseville is an accessible, safe, and secure experience;  Coordinate with other transit operators in the region to leverage buying power for capital acquisitions and services to increase cost-effectiveness of the system;  Expand Roseville Transit’s customer base by increasing its share of “choice riders;”  Achieve sustainable growth in ridership and fare revenue; and  Improve the farebox recovery ratio by the end of the SRTP planning period.

SECTION 2.2 – PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM

This section presents a Performance Measurement System intended to evaluate the City of Roseville’s public transit service offerings (i.e., fixed-route, dial-a-ride, and commuter bus).

General Plan Goals for Transit It is the underlying goal of the entire Circulation Element that the City’s circulation system promotes: 1. The safe, efficient, and reliable movement of people and goods; 2. Shift from the single occupant automobile to other modes of transportation; and

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 15 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

3. Provide an adequate level of transportation service for all persons traveling in and through Roseville.

The Circulation Element makes clear the City will promote a safe and efficient mass transit system, utilizing both rail and bus modes, to reduce congestion, reduce auto emissions, including emissions that contribute to climate change, improve the environment, and provide viable non-automotive transportation in and through Roseville.

City’s Program Performance Budget It is the vision of the City’s Alternative Transportation Division as presented in the City’s adopted Program Performance Budget to create a vibrant, healthy community by providing safe transportation options that make it easy for people to move around the community.

It is the objective of the Alternative Transportation Division to provide a mix of transit services that fit the needs of the community, increase transit ridership annually, meet the statutory farebox recovery ratio, maintain service costs, and seek stable outside funding sources.

Based on the prior SRTP as well as our assessment of Roseville Transit service, the City’s primary focus should continue to be to provide a safe, reliable and efficient means of transportation for its residents and surrounding communities. By updating these goals, the City commits to further enhance the regional transit network through meeting the needs of its citizens and providing viable mobility options and solutions for regional connectivity.

To support the City’s mission and vision, the following core values have been identified in addition to goals presented within the prior SRTP:  Efficiency,  Effectiveness,  Responsiveness,  Inclusiveness, and  Environmental consciousness.

An effective Performance Measurement System includes goals, objectives, and performance standards.

“A goal is a general direction-setter. It is an ideal future end related to the public health, safety, or general welfare. A goal is a general expression of community values and, therefore, may be abstract in nature. Consequently, a goal is generally not quantifiable or time-dependent.

An objective is a specified end, condition, or state that is an intermediate step toward attaining a goal. It should be achievable and, when possible, measurable and time-specific. An objective may

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 16 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

pertain to one particular aspect of a goal or it may be one of several successive steps toward goal achievement. Consequently, there may be more than one objective for each goal.

A policy is a specific statement that guides decision-making. It indicates a commitment of the local legislative body to a particular course of action…a policy is carried out by implementation measures. For a policy to be useful as a guide to action it must be clear and unambiguous.

A standard is a rule or measure establishing a level of quality or quantity that must be complied with or satisfied. Standards define the abstract terms of objectives and policies with concrete specifications. Standards set quantifiable targets for achieving the adopted goals.

An implementation measure is an action, procedure, program, or technique that carries out general plan policy. Each policy must have at least one corresponding implementation measure.” (Source: State of California General Plan Guidelines, Page 13 et seq).

The Performance Measurement System currently in use by the City of Roseville was last updated during the City’s 2005 Short Range Transit Plan process. The Performance Measurement System presented herein updates the service efficiency, effectiveness, and service quality goals presented in the 2005 SRTP. The updated Performance Measurement System assesses the local fixed-route, demand-response, and commuter service using quantifiable criteria. Performance standards which do not require a specific threshold for transit funding are specifically set for Roseville Transit to be achievable measures for the next seven planning years.

The following tables link these goals to the quantifiable measurements or targets; these targets are then compared with actual performance measurements from FY 2009/10. Recommended performance standards are provided for the future implementation of this plan.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 17 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit 2.2.1 Goals, Objectives, and Performance Standards

Goal I. Sustainably operate an efficient and effective transit system through maximizing service and minimizing cost impacts. Objective Performance Measure Actual Performance Standard Performance Minimize Farebox Recovery (System-wide) FY 2008/09 17.1% 15.0% operating cost. Fixed-Route 9.5% 15.0% Commuter Bus 66.9% 75.0% Dial-A-Ride 8.0% 10.0% Operating Cost/Vehicle Service Hour (VSH) $78.48 $80.00 Fixed-Route $78.80 Commuter Bus $74.32 Dial-A-Ride $80.25 Operating Cost/Passenger $12.11 $10.00 Fixed-Route $11.83 Commuter Bus $6.12 Dial-A-Ride $34.29 Increase Passengers/VSH 6.48 8.0 transit Fixed-Route 6.7 8.0 passengers. Commuter Bus 12.2 Dial-A-Ride 2.3 3.0 Passengers/Vehicle Service Mile (VSM) 0.47 1.0 Fixed-Route 0.53 Commuter Bus 0.5 Dial-A-Ride 0.21 Annual growth in passengers (FY 2008/09 to FY At least 2 percent Fixed-Route -11.3% Commuter Bus 2.3% Dial-A-Ride -7.7% Increase Fare/Passenger $2.07 $2.00 revenues. Fixed-Route $1.13 Commuter Bus $4.09 Dial-A-Ride $2.74

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 18 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Goal II. Provide safe, reliable, and high quality transportation . Objective Performance Measure Actual Performance Performance Standard Provide Safely Ratio of passengers to available seats Meets Standard No more than 145 percent of available seats. Passenger Load Standard Meets Standard Passenger injuries Meets Standard Less than one passenger injury per 100,000 boardings(fixed-route), 10,000 (Dial-A-Ride) Bus Stop Safety Standard Meets Standard Visibly identifiable with signage, route information, and stop amenities. Preventable accidents Meets Standard Min. of 60,000 miles between preventable accidents. Offer mandatory and optional training opportunities to Meets Standard Provide annual driver safety and training opportunities (at minimum) improve safety and professional development. Reliable transit On-time performance service. Fixed-Route Meets Standard 95 percent of all trips should be operated "on-time," defined as early and no more than five minutes Commuter Bus Meets Standard 95 percent of all trips should be operated "on-time," defined as early and no more than five minutes Dial-A-Ride Meets Standard 90 percent of all monthly trips operate on-time (defined as within 15 minutes of the scheduled pick-up time). Missed trips Dial-A-Ride Meets Standard Less than one percent of total monthly trips (defined as no later than 15 minutes past the schedule pick-up time or missed entirely). Minimize transfer wait times Meets Standard No more than 5 minutes for transfer wait times. Spare ratio Fixed route Meets Standard 20 percent Commuter Bus Meets Standard 20 percent Dial-A-Ride Meets Standard 20 percent Maintenance schedule Fixed route Meets Standard All regularly scheduled maintenance completed within 500 miles or five days of scheduled date/cycle. Dial-A-Ride Meets Standard All regularly scheduled maintenance completed within 500 miles or five days of scheduled date/cycle. Commuter Bus Meets Standard All regularly scheduled maintenance completed within 500 miles or five days of scheduled date/cycle. Fleet Replacement Meets Standard Replaces vehicles by the FTA bus useful life timelines. Complaint resolution Meets Standard Monthly reports detailing number and type of complaint as well as resolution status.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 19 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Objective Performance Measure Actual Performance Performance Standard Reliable transit Road calls service. Fixed route Meets Standard No less than 10,000 miles between road calls. Defined as incidents where service is interrupted longer than five minutes due to a mechanical failure (except for flat tires). Commuter Bus Meets Standard No less than 10,000 miles between road calls. Defined as incidents where service is interrupted longer than five minutes due to a mechanical failure (except for flat tires). Dial-A-Ride Meets Standard No less than 10,000 miles between road calls. Defined as incidents where service is interrupted longer than five minutes due to a mechanical failure (except for flat tires). Goal III. Provide transit service that is accessible to all persons while maintaining system productivity Objective Performance Measure Actual Performance Performance Standard Handicap accessibility ADA goal Meets Standard Fully meet the requirements of the American with Disabilities Act. Wheelchair-accessible vehicles Meets Standard Maintain a fully wheelchair-accessible transit fleet. Bicycle Accessibility Bicycle amenities available Meets Standard Provide bicycle racks on entire vehicle fleet to accommodate at a minimum two bikes. Goal IV. Evaluate, monitor, and improve transit services on an on-going bases Objective Performance Measure Actual Performance Performance Standard Ongoing, mandatory Regularly programmed service evaluations Meets Standard Independent evaluations at intervals of no greater than five enhancement. years. Ongoing, mandatory Regularly programmed data collection and reporting. Meets Standard Monthly performance reports including such information as reporting. vehicle service hours, vehicle service mileage, fare revenue, ridership, accidents, and injuries.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 20 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

3 3. SERVICE PLAN

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 21 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 22 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

CHAPTER 3.0– SERVICE PLAN

The goal of this chapter is to present recommendations for enhancing the City’s public transit program based on findings identified via demographic analysis, customer/rider surveys, ride checks, performance evaluation, and field observations. The Service Plan chapter is divided into four sections including description of the preferred alternatives, assessment of the City’s recent transit marketing efforts, financial aspects (including those capital and infrastructure improvements deemed necessary to support the recommendations), and an implementation plan for each of the proposed scenarios.

Service plan recommendations presented herein represent potential projects or activities to be carried out across a seven-year planning horizon. Recommendations are reflective of the proposed service increases discussed in the Transit Master Plan for South Placer County (Long Range Transit Plan) Scenario 2, which discusses the development of additional services to new growth areas in south Placer County, between Lincoln and Sierra College, between Auburn and Folsom, and through Rocklin.2 In planning for the first three years, keep in mind, implementation of each recommendation will be largely dependent on funding availability.

SECTION 3.1 – PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES

In crafting the following service scenarios, Moore & Associates drew upon the City’s prior Short Range Transit Plan (2005), community focus groups, on-site evaluation, community surveys, ride checks, and discussions with City and PCTPA staff. We sought to address temporal and spatial service gaps as well as “less productive” route segments and day-parts. In summary, our goal was to identify strategies intended to optimize existing Roseville Transit resources as well as present practical recommendations for sustainable service development.

The Service Plan chapter presents two distinct service scenarios based on public input, performance analysis, and consultant insight. Each represents a “blueprint” for improving and enhancing Roseville Transit’s performance and the quality of the service for the end-user. These scenarios include administrative, operational, capital, and proposed maintenance aspects.  Alternative A: Reduce wait times, extend hours of operation, modify transit schedules, enhance connections with Placer County Transit, introduce a “new route” policy, formalize fare review process, conduct Park & Ride feasibility study, conduct Transfer Point Locational study, conduct annual community survey, increase farebox recovery, and enhance marketing efforts.  Alternative B: All recommendations included within Alternative A as well as the introduction of two new routes, new stops, expansion of service to underserved areas, consolidation of

2 URS Corporation and DKS Associates. Transit Master Plan for South Placer County. June 2007. (Prepared for Placer County Transportation Planning Agency).

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 23 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

dial-a-ride programs, and reduction or elimination of service runs on poor performing routes.

The relative merits of each service alternative are discussed. Any alignment change is accompanied by a map illustrating the proposed change.

Alternative A Transit Schedule Adjust Transfer Times As presented in Section A.4 – Transfer Analysis, “transfer penalties,” are often associated with negative perceptions patrons develop toward transferring from/to a particular transit service due to wait times, vehicle dwell time, walking distance, and ease of connectivity. As discussed in the Transfer Analysis section, transfer penalties vary and can greatly impact the value of connectivity if a patron believes it’s inconvenient or too costly. Coordinating inter- and intra- city transfer times is important to enhancing the ease of transfers and reducing transfer penalties. As shown in the transfer analysis, better coordination of Routes A, B, and D for connections could increase ridership and the attractiveness of these routes. With this in mind, we recommend the City review operating schedules for each route to coordinate transfer times with intra-city connections as well as with Placer County Transit and Sacramento Regional Transit to eliminate above-average wait times (more than 10 minutes), and reallocate running time to increase layover time at high volume transfer points. The goal is to provide (at minimum) a five-minute window for transferring yet not exceed more than 10-minute wait time at any particular transfer point. This recommendation is particularly relevant for Routes A and B which experience the greatest volume of transfer activity.

Extend Hours of Operation (Weekdays only) Nearly 60 percent of documented transfer activity occurred between Placer County Transit (PCT) and Roseville Transit routes (Appendix A, Section A.4 – Transfer Analysis). Onboard Survey analysis further supports this observation as 43 percent of riders making inter-service transfers cited connections with Placer County Transit. Recommendations for Placer County Transit (see Placer County’s SRTP) propose the extension of service hours to 10:00 p.m. to accommodate late-evening class schedules at Sierra College as well as encourage use of transit for evening travel.

Given PCT currently provides service until 9:30 p.m. and transfer activity analysis indicate a high volume of connections between Roseville Transit and Placer County Transit, we recommend the City coordinate hours of operation with Placer County, extending weekday service for routes with ridership volumes (i.e., Routes A, B, L, and M) in FY 2012/13 and the remaining routes (i.e., Routes S, D/I, C, G, and R) in the years to follow (if warranted). Pickups will occur at the Galleria Transfer point until 9:30 p.m. Dial-A-Ride services will run until 10:00 p.m. to complement the fixed-route service hours. Increasing time allotted for transfers may increase ridership and reduce the incidence of missed transfers.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 24 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Modify Transit Schedules Based on ride check data, Roseville Transit buses ran “hot” (i.e., prior to published schedule) nearly 12 percent of the surveyed trips (i.e., departing early from or arriving early at a scheduled time-point). Upon review of individual routes it was revealed Routes A, G, and S were the most- likely to run “hot”. The majority of early departures occurred during the last stop of the day, suggesting the City needs to modify operating schedules to eliminate excess travel time between stops, thereby reducing early arrivals and/or departures at published time-points.

Ride checks provide a snapshot of productivity and performance of a transit system. Given the high volume of riders utilizing Routes A, B, M, and R, we recommend the City review the schedules of these routes at various transfer points (particularly Routes A, B, and M at the Galleria Mall and Routes A, B, and R at the Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd transfer point) to ensure early departures or arrivals do not impact inter- and intra-city connections. (Note: This recommendation should be addressed with PCTPA’s 2011 Schedule Coordination Project.)

Additionally, the City of Roseville should continually make adjustments to ensure on-time performance for transfers (inter-service connections) are Route D had more late departures than any other Roseville Transit route. Late departures occurred on 50 percent of surveyed trips during the early afternoon. Route D experienced higher boarding and alighting averages per trip during this day-part. This suggests Route D running times may need to be revised to address higher volumes experienced during this period.

As previously stated, poor on-time performance impacts not only the City’s transit service, but also inter-service connectivity (i.e., Sacramento Regional Transit and Placer County Transit).

Connect Roseville Transit with Placer County Transit’s Taylor Road Shuttle At the time of this report, the only direct route between Roseville and Sierra College was provided by Placer County Transit with a connection to the Galleria transfer point. This connection makes a transfer necessary at the Roseville Galleria to address home-to-school travel needs. As presented in the onboard survey analysis (see Appendix B, Section B.1), the greatest share of survey respondents (nearly 24 percent) cited being full-time students. Therefore, we recommend the City of Roseville and Placer County Transit work together to enhance connections between Roseville and Sierra College. We recommend the two operators meet on the east side of Roseville, at the intersection of Douglas Boulevard and Sierra College Boulevard, creating a timed-transfer for students. This connection has two options, one using existing resources and a second requiring additional resources.

OPTION 1: A recommendation in the Placer County Transit Short Range Transit Plan is to extend the Taylor Road Shuttle south from Sierra College to the intersection of Douglas Boulevard and Sierra College Boulevard. The Taylor Road Shuttle currently operates every 120 minutes, from 6:35 a.m. to 8:25 p.m. Route G provides a connection between the

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 25 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

intersection of Sierra College Boulevard and Douglas Boulevard and the Sierra Gardens transfer point every 75 minutes, from 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Connections between Roseville Transit and Placer County Transit can be made using these service parameters. However, the connection would not be optimal and would benefit from minor routing changes might slightly improve connections between the two services. Ultimately, the connection would provide some basic mobility improvements to an area where no connectivity currently exist.

OPTION 2: In order for transfers to be more effective between Route G and the Taylor Road Shuttle, headways on Route G must be improved to 30 or 60-minutes. Therefore, as recommended for Route G in Alternative B (page 33), enhancing frequency on Route G to at least a 60-minute headway would greatly improve connections between the two services. However, it is clear this will require additional investment of both capital and operating funds.

Exhibit 3.1.1 Proposed Placer County Transit alignment and Roseville Route G

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 26 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Policies “New Route” Policy In terms of possible service expansion, we recommend a policy be adopted wherein quantifiable guidelines and criteria supporting the introduction of new “pilot” routes or services determine whether or not such expansions continue beyond the first year. New service expansions or “pilot” projects would need to meet criteria established in order to warrant continuation.

We recommend the City establish a baseline performance standard for any new route or demonstration project. Based on FY 2010/11 ridership levels, the City’s fixed-route service transported nearly seven passengers per Vehicle Service Hour. We suggest any new services meet or exceed this yardstick (Passengers/Vehicle Service Hour), preferably reaching eight Passengers/Vehicle Service Hour depending on the particular service, density of the service area, frequency, service hours, etc. In addition to the above criterion, the “pilot” route ridership must increase proportionate with overall system productivity. Further, should a new routes subsidy per trip exceed the system average it would be subject for elimination.

Adopt a Formalized Fare Review Process Most transit providers have a formal fare review process either triggered by revenue shortfall, introduction or restructuring of a route or service, or installation of new technology. Given the preceding, we recommend the City adopt a formalized fare review process triggered by the above mentioned criteria. Alternatively, Roseville may consider establishing a fare review process conducted on an annual- or triennial-basis. This fare review process does not need to address a particular problem rather applies minor changes to specific fare elements (i.e., daily pass rate changes, transfers, etc.). We recommend the City conduct a fare review scheduled concurrent with the Triennial Performance Review. It may be beneficial to coordinate fare reviews with other County transit operates to ensure consistency in fare increases. Additionally, we suggest the City consider fare increases every three to five years, with incremental adjustments across a two-year period for substantial fare adjustments. These increases would be relative to development of new services, funding shortfalls, or other variables impacting operating costs of City transit services.

Study Conduct Park & Ride Feasibility Study The Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd transfer point supports connections between Routes A, B, and R as well as intercity links to Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT), Roseville Commuter bus, and Placer County Transit. This is the only stop within Roseville which provides connections to SacRT. Therefore, we recommend the City consider developing a Park & Ride facility to accommodate high volume of passengers utilizing this location. At the time of this report, the City has been in the process of acquiring funding for the Park & Ride project. The study should evaluate existing stop amenities, size of potential facility, current location, and access points in addition to presenting design alternatives and guidelines for developing the facility.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 27 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Conduct Transfer Point Locational Study Several questions arise when determining the location of a transfer point. Is the transfer point located in an area that can accommodate the forecast level of pedestrian/patron traffic? Is it easily accessible by other modes of transportation? To address these questions we recommend the City conduct a locational study focusing on examining existing transfer point locations (specifically the Sierra Gardens and Louis/Orlando transfer points), capacities, and uses to determine the optimal facilities and locations as well as their capacity to address the volume of traffic (transit, pedestrian, etc.) forecast. The study would identify potential new locations for transfer points providing site alternatives as well as cost estimates.

Conduct Annual Community Survey The success of a transit program is dependent largely on its ability to provide efficient and cost- effective service(s) which satisfy the mobility needs of current and prospective customers. As previously stated, the best recommendations are community-driven. Therefore, it is important ample opportunity exist for the community to voice their concerns to the governing body regarding their specific transportation needs. To this end, we recommend the City conduct an annual transportation-focused community survey to supplement PCTPA’s annual TDA Article 8 public process. This survey would serve as an outlet in providing an inclusive account of the mobility needs of the community.

Marketing The City’s is committed to continuing its coordination with PCTPA and other county operators to support and enhance regional transit connectivity throughout Western Placer County. As presented in the Marketing Assessment section, Roseville currently employs several marketing strategies in publicizing its transit services. To support current marketing efforts, City staff expressed a desire to carry out the following activities throughout FY 2011/2012.

Advertise Multi-Pass Use The City should increase marketing of the multi-trip passes and ticket books to increase use of this non-cash fare media especially with respect to its fixed-route service. This marketing will translate to cost savings for bus riders, thereby reducing the burden of carrying exact fare for each trip and increasing the convenience of utilizing the services. Doing so will increase ridership and bus stop dwell time.

Request for Proposal In an effort to increase the amount of marketing revenue generated from the system, we recommend the City bid out the services for managing and soliciting advertisements for shelters and vehicles. Given the current economic climate we recommend undertaking this at the start of FY 2012/13.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 28 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Electronic Fare Media As demand increases, the need for transportation providers to optimize service offerings increases. It is the intent of Roseville Transit to move toward electronic fare media to optimize the efficiency in fare collection, reporting, and monitoring. There are four main types of electronic fare media from which the City can choose:  Circuit cards (Smart cards),  Magnetic cards,  Capacitive cards, and  Optical cards.

As presented in Appendix F, Section F.2, Roseville has the option to participate in the Connect Transit card system, which will include the integration of a universal smart card system into six participating transit provider systems. The program will be launched in 2012 as a pilot program, with full integration in 2013. If the City opts to join the consortium, we recommend a full Marketing Plan be developed for Roseville Transit to promote the new regional fare media.

“NextBus” tracking Reliability and dependability are important characteristics which reflect an efficient and customer driven transit program. To enhance the performance and perception of the City’s transit service we recommend employing “NextBus” tracking. The “NextBus” Global Positioning System (GPS) tracks satellites to provide accurate vehicle arrival/departure information and real- time maps for all transit modes (i.e., rail, shuttles, buses, etc.).

NextBus also considers potential service challenges (i.e., traffic variations, breakdowns, etc.) which can emerge. The real-time scheduling information assists in forecasting the exact time a bus will arrive at a specific stop, updated at regular intervals. Customers can access this information via the internet and other mobile devices. The marketing of the “NextBus” feature as part of the City’s transit service could further enhance positive customer perception by communicating to the public the City’s commitment to quality of service.

Commuter Service Survey Surveys offer an avenue in soliciting feedback and insight into customer needs and demand. Utilizing survey results, the City can identify travel patterns, rider preferences, and apply the data to adjust routes, increase frequency, or potentially reduce service. To this end, we recommend the City conduct an annual commuter bus survey to ensure the service continues to meet the needs and expectations of its customers.

YouTube informational Videos Social media advertising plays a large role in enhancing consumer or customer perception of a certain product or service. On sites like YouTube, where individuals can share videos, offer a useful tool in displaying messages or advertisements for a particular product or service. The City staff has expressed a desire to develop short YouTube informational videos. Therefore, we

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 29 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

propose the City develop a web series of short video clips highlighting subjects such as “how to ride transit,” “safe commuting,” “bikes onboard,” “benefits of riding,” “using Dial-A-Ride,” and other informational pieces. These informational videos can be used in presentations in addition to being available on the City’s transit webpage.

Direct Mail Campaign (Local service) As on ongoing means to enhance ridership on the local fixed-route service, we recommend the City undertake a direct mail campaign to households within a quarter-mile of transit lines. The effort would focus on the benefits of switching to transit as a low-cost travel alternative, highlighting the benefits not only financially, but environmentally and physically to utilizing alternative transportation. The mailing should include transit schedule information as well as instructions as to how to access/ride the bus.

Increased Marketing/Awareness of Roseville Transit Marketing is essential to the success of a transit service. While the City currently employs several strategies to publicizing Roseville Transit, it may be beneficial to expand said efforts with more high profile marketing/awareness. We recommend the City continue its efforts in utilizing a variety of media outlets to promote Roseville Transit. These marketing channels include ads inside the Galleria, Cable TV commercials, print display advertisement, utility bill inserts, and cross-promotions/other City programs/services (e.g., parks and recreations). This is an ongoing effort and will be especially important as service adjustments and pilot programs are implemented.

Summary of Alternative A Recommendations  Adjust wait/transfer times to enhance inter-service connectivity.  Extend weekday hours of operation.  Modify operating schedules so as to improve on-time performance.  Introduce policy governing introduction of new routes.  Conduct Park & Ride Feasibility study.  Conduct Transfer Point Locational study.  Conduct annual community survey.  Enhance Marketing efforts.

Advantages  High probability of ridership growth, especially during evening hours.  Retain familiarity to current riders.  Improved on-time performance.  Increase in annual ridership.  Increase in fare revenue.  Enhance service connectivity and coordination.  Low-cost relative to the other service scenarios.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 30 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

 Increased customer satisfaction.

Disadvantages  Increased operating cost (VSH, VSM).  Increased marketing cost.  Some portions of Roseville will remain either not served or “underserved” by transit.

Alternative B In this scenario, we present potential enhancement opportunities for the City’s transit program across the next five years. This scenario includes recommendations proposed in Alternative A as well as operational and capital recommendations having greater performance-based and economic impacts on the transit network. Implementation of this alternative would depend in large part on the availability of funding.

In discussing potential enhancements to the City’s transit services, it is important to also consider the impacts (i.e., transit equity) transportation services or lack of services have on the affected populations. “Equity” (also called justice or fairness) refers to the distribution of impacts (benefits and costs) and whether that distribution is considered appropriate in meeting the level of need or demand expressed by a specific social class, income level, and/or group.3 We believe it is important for public transit providers such as the City of Roseville to consider transit equity whenever planning decisions are made; keeping in mind the impact of transit on quality of life, economic opportunities, land value and development, employment, and economic development within the community in question.

With respect to public transit providers such as the City of Roseville, the discussion of transit equity is particularly relevant when assessing the need to invest in future transit enhancements and improving accessibility to communities not currently served by transit.

Relative to this discussion is the discussion of two competing goals: coverage versus productivity. The City of Roseville remains devoted to providing efficient and cost-effective transit service to its residents and the community at-large. In doing so, it seeks to maximize service productivity while also addressing the mobility needs of those portions of the city unserved by transit. Although perceived demand may exist in these underserved communities, it does not always translate to actual demand or higher volumes of ridership. With this said the argument for expanding service to underserved areas although valid proves to be second to enhancing the productivity of current service offerings. Through developing routes in more densely-populated areas the likelihood of meeting the increasing mobility needs of the community at-large.

3 Todd Litman, “Evaluating Transportation Equity,” World Transport Policy & Practice (http://ecoplan.org/wtpp/wt_index.htm), Volume 8, No. 2, Summer 2002, pp. 50-65.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 31 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

In preparation of developing routes, we recommend the City utilize available market research (i.e., Triennial Survey) and the CIP traffic model to identify potential trip generators and underserved areas in addition to those identified within this report. Coupled with the data collected from the project (see Appendices), recommendations proposed herein reflect a myriad of onsite observations, public input, and system performance analysis.

The narrative which follows provides details as to potential routes or programs proposed across the next five years.

Operational Coordinate Dial-A-Ride Services with Placer County Dial-A-Ride Service Operators (Intercity Dial- A-Ride Service) With the recent expansion of the South Placer Regional Call Center in Roseville, we recommend the City coordinate with Placer County as well as other transit operators in the county to minimize overlap of services by coordinating all Dial-A-Ride programs and use of Dial-A-Ride fleets for cross-jurisdictional trips. With the development of the regional call center, which responded to residents requests during the “unmet transit needs” process for better coordinated DAR trip planning across jurisdictional boundaries, the call center will assist with centralized dispatching and transit planning. In the long-term this will result in a more efficient intercity Dial-A-Ride program serving western Placer County residents. A centralized DAR or intercity service will require additional staff and funding to implement the system. Several considerations must be made when developing the service including what types of trips are to be provided (i.e., medical, recreational, shopping, etc.), whether it is to be eligibility-based, and establishment of a universal fare structure.

Additionally, we recommend continued coordination between Placer County Transit (PCT), Placer County Transportation Planning Agency (PCTPA), and Western Placer Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (WPCTSA) to establish a cost-sharing and funding methodology for cross-jurisdictional services. Developing a cost-sharing model will balance the cost in providing intercity trips without one provider garnering the majority of the expense. Rather the cost of the service may be divided by percentage of trips provided on a zonal basis.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 32 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Expand Existing Services Although community survey results were numerically modest, survey results skewed toward expansion of existing services. Expanding service locations and more service on weekends each had the second greatest number of responses. The low response rate confirms the need for additional research to determine the appropriate level of service area expansion. Adding later service could substantially increase ridership on poor performing routes or route segments. Therefore, we recommend the City expand transit services (as presented herein) to increase potential for ridership and fare revenue growth as well as enhance perception by the community at-large.

Introduce New Stops on Route S Route S provides a direct service between the Roseville Galleria transfer point and the Santucci Justice Center. Ride Check data (see Appendix A, Section A.3) indicate Route S yielded higher boardings in the morning than any other day-part, with fewer than two boardings during the late morning to late afternoon period. This is low for a fixed-route service. To increase ridership on this route, we recommend modifying the existing loop by introducing additional stop locations at the Walmart Supercenter located off Highway 65 (heading southbound) and Thunder Valley Casino. Currently the route runs on a 60-minute headway, with a 20-minute travel time between the Santucci Justice Center and Roseville Galleria stop. The route modifications would increase VSH by approximately 2,012, yet maintain the 60-minute frequency. The County currently pays a portion of operating cost for this route. Regional coordination needs to occur to ensure the base level of funding or burden of both the City and County to operate the service remains split between both entities. Additionally, with the additional service to Thunder Valley Casino, we suggest the City consult with Thunder Valley Casino regarding possible operating support.

Ridership forecast: >31,000 annually Additional Operating Cost: $183,128 Additional Vehicle Service Hours: 2,012 VSH annually

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 33 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit 3.1.2 Proposed Route S Alignment

Reduce Routes G and C Runs During the Late Afternoon Based on the ride check data, Route G yielded one of the lowest productivities. This suggests little to no demand, supporting the elimination of runs during late afternoon hours. Given Routes C and G interline, we recommend reducing Route C’s hours of operation as well. We propose both routes reduce trips past 4:00 p.m. Doing so would free up resources which could be reallocated to implementing recommendations presented herein.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 34 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Reroute Route G Roseville Transit’s route network includes overlap among some routes. To reduce operating cost, we suggest rerouting alignments to consolidate routes and avoid overlap.

As a possible alternative to reducing runs on Route G, we recommend the City adjust the existing route alignment to run as a figure “8” between Sierra Gardens and Colonial Village Apartments instead of running up Sierra College Blvd. and looping around Cavitt and Stallman Road. Route G would instead head east on Douglas Blvd. to the Slate Apartments, then proceed south on E. Roseville Pkwy. The route would then proceed west on Eureka Rd. and terminate at the Sierra Gardens transfer point. We recommend the City make Sierra Gardens the pulse- point for both Routes C and G. This realignment would reduce headway on Route G from 40 minutes to 30 minutes, thereby reducing operating costs.

Exhibit 3.1.3 Proposed Route G Alignment

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 35 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Revise Route C Route C provides service from Sierra Gardens along Rocky Ridge Blvd. serving the neighborhoods along Sunrise Avenue. Given Route C interlines with Route G, we recommend the City adjust Route C to run on a 30-minute headway (27-minute run time), starting service as 6:55 a.m. and alternating with Route G (26-minute run time). Route frequencies (Routes C and G) would be reduced to 60 minutes to address the alignment changes with a seven-minute recovery time between runs. The interlined route (combined Routes C and G) would require a single bus to run the service. Alternatively, if Route C is separated from the interlined route, we propose Route C run on a reverse alignment to travel from the Sierra Gardens route. Every other run would depart from the transfer point heading eastbound prior to reversing westbound once it reaches the Sierra Gardens transfer point.

This recommendation is part of a tiered arrangement which prioritizes recommendations based on existing resources and acquirement of new resources (financial or capital). The trigger point for increasing resources is dependent largely on performance during the pilot period as well as the amount of resources available.

The pilot program would reflect a 12-month period. Continuation of the service beyond the 12- month period would be based on its quantitative performance across the trial period, utilizing the “new policy” standard presented in Alternative A. If the service is found to have no significant impact on ridership to warrant continuation, the service would revert back to its baseline levels.

Ridership Forecast: >24,000 Combined C and G Operating Cost: $-45,040 annually deducted ($327,191 actual operating cost) Combined C and G Vehicle Service Hours: -495 VSH annually deducted

Route C only Operating Cost: $169,396 in total Route C only Vehicle Service Hours: 1,862 VSH annually

Route G only Operating Cost: $157,794 in total Route G only Vehicle Service Hours: 1,734 VSH annually

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 36 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit 3.1.4 Proposed Route C Alignment

Expand Service to New and Existing Residential Developments Historically, low-income individuals, seniors, and persons with disabilities have a higher propensity to use transit as a mobility option than the population at-large. The City of Roseville provides qualified residents the opportunity to apply for Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 37 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Program assistance providing “tenant-based” rental assistance for individuals earning at or below a specified income level (relative to the Federal poverty threshold) or having a personal disability or impairment.

Within Roseville, 19 apartment complexes participate in the Section 8 housing program, offering accommodations to low-income residents, persons with disabilities, and/or seniors. The following table lists each development as well as the closest Roseville Transit route alignments/stops. Of the apartment/housing facilities listed in Exhibit 3.1.5, six apartment complexes lack access to public transit. We recommend the City expand Roseville Transit offerings to provide service to these “underserved” areas.

Exhibit 3.1.5 Section 8 Housing and Roseville Routes Development Nearest Roseville Route(s) Stop Name Colonial Village Route G Eureka Rd./Sierra College Blvd. Crocker Oaks No service - Foothills Tennis Village Routes R, D, I McNally Dr./Foothills Blvd. Heritage Park Routes D, I, M Junction Rd./Woodcreek Blvd. Highland Creek No service - Maidu I Route G Eureka Rd./Sterling Ct. Maidu II Route G Eureka Rd./Professional Dr. Maidu III Route G Eureka Blvd./Professional Dr. Oaks at Woodcreek Route M Pleasant Grove Blvd./Woodcreek Oaks Blvd. Olympus Park Route A Sunrise Ave./Conroy Ln. Park Place Apartments Route C Douglas Blvd./Santa Clara Dr. Santa Clara Terrace Route C Douglas Blvd./Santa Clara Dr. Siena Apartments No service - Silver Ridge No service - St. Kathryn Arms Route L Douglas Blvd./Donner Ave. State Hotel Route I Washington Blvd. /Main St. Sutter Terrace No service - Vintage Square No service - Woodcreek Terrace Route M Pleasant Grove Blvd./Foothills Blvd. Source: Roseville Housing Division

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 38 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit 3.1.6 Section 8 Housing and Roseville Routes

Legend

! Affordable Housing Route A Route B ³ Route C Route D Route G Crocker Oaks Apartments Siena Apartments ! Route I ! Route L Route M

Highland! Creek Route R Route S Vintage Square at The Oaks at ! Westpark ! Roseville City Boundary Woodcreek ! Oaks at Woodcreek Pinnacle at ! ! Galleria Sutter Terrace ! Eskaton Roseville ! Foothills Tennis Village Manor ! Silver Ridge ! State Hotel Heritage Park Apartments ! Park Place Apartments

! ! St. Kathryn ! ! Maidu II Vineyard Gate Santa Clara ! ! Arms ! Maidu Village ! Apartments ! Olympus Park Maidu III ! Colonial Village

*Manzanita Place seniors/ physically disabled only

0 1 2 4 Miles

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 39

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Modify Route M Route M provides service from the Roseville Galleria to stops along Pleasant Grove Drive, running a loop to the Junction Transfer Point. Following review of Roseville Transit’s performance, we propose extension of Route M to the Vintage Square Apartments (located at 2531 Wharton Lane).

The Vintage Square apartment complex is a senior-living community located in Westpark Senior Community. To reach this site, the current Route M alignment would need to be modified to travel beyond its existing alignment, heading further east along Pleasant Grove Drive toward Market Street. Once on Market Street, the route would enter the complex’s main entrance before circling back onto Market Street.

In addition to extending the route to Westpark, we recommend Route M’s alignment be revised to eliminate the loop on Woodcreek and Junction, and travel along Gibson Drive as it heads westbound toward the Roseville Galleria. Elimination of the Woodcreek and Junction loop precludes the extension of Route D and I to provide coverage to this route segment. The addition of the Gibson Drive segment will provide service to residents living within the Highland Creek Apartments (800 Gibson Drive) not currently served by any transit service. As a pilot program, we recommend the City operate the proposed alignment across a six-month period. If after six months the service does not achieve the agreed upon productivity standards, the alignment would revert back to its baseline service.

Ridership Forecast: >18,000 annually Additional Operating Cost: -$132,485 deducted Additional Vehicle Service Hours: -1,456 annually

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 40 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit 3.1.7 Proposed Route M Alignment

Modify Route D/I Corresponding to Route M’s revisions, we recommend the City modify Routes D/I. At present, Route D/I’s alignment would be maintained with an additional route segment extending out to Mahany Park. As presented above, the new alignments on Routes D/I and M will prompt the replacement of the Junction Transfer Point as the main connecting point to Mahany Park for Routes D/I and M. Additional stops could be added to accommodate the noticeably high volumes of riders boarding and alighting at established stops to reach locations along Foothills Rd. (i.e., Foothills Tennis Village). We anticipate the route extension would add four minutes to running time, (which reflects a 30-minute headway).

As discussed in Route M’s recommendation, we recommend the pilot program reflect a six- month trial. Depending on funding and the ability to achieve the performance criteria presented in the City’s “new route” policy would determine whether the service continues beyond the six-month term.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 41 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Additionally, given Route I follows an identical alignment to Route D the City might consider identifying the two routes under one route name, identified by direction (i.e., Route D west and Route D east).

Ridership Forecast: >31,000 annually Additional Operating Cost: $258,873 Additional Vehicle Service Hours: 2,845 annually

Exhibit 3.1.8 Proposed Route D Alignment

Extend Route R to Crocker Oaks Apartments The Crocker Oaks apartments are located at 8000 Painted Desert Drive. Currently no transit service is provided to this area of Roseville. We recommend the City consider redesigning Route R to travel from its existing stop at Pride Industries to the Crocker Oaks apartments via Blue Oaks Blvd to Woodcreek Oaks Blvd during the first run of the day. Based on ride check data, the highest volume of ridership at the Pride Industries stop occurs during peak hour times. With this said, the service should provide one morning and one evening trip to the Pride Industries stop to accommodate commuter volumes to this location. Each trip thereafter would run from its origin point at the Louis Ln/Orlando Blvd transfer point directly to the Crocker Oaks Apartments and back to the origin point. The additional segment between Pride Industries and

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 42 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

the Crocker Oaks apartments adds a 1.5 mile stretch during those two runs, equating to an additional four minutes to the route. This increases overall travel time from 42 minutes to 46 minutes per trip, increasing headways from 45 minutes to 50 minutes.

Ridership Forecast: >32,000 annually Additional Operating Cost: $346,451 Additional Vehicle Service Hours: 3,807 VSH annually

Exhibit 3.1.9 Proposed Route R Alignment

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 43 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Modify Route L To increase efficiency of transit service along Douglas Blvd, we recommend rerouting Route L to travel south east down E. Roseville Pkwy to Eureka Blvd. Based on ride check data, the service posted modest numbers along the portion directly north of Douglas Blvd. on the east end of the route.

The modified route alignment would run from the Civic Center and proceed to Douglas Blvd, where it would travel southbound onto E. Roseville Pkwy. From E. Roseville Pkwy, the alignment would proceed northbound on Eureka Rd. continuing toward Kaiser Hospital and along Rocky Ridge before returning to its origin point.

Exhibit 3.1.10 Proposed Route L Alignment

Ridership Forecast: >30,000 annually Additional Operating Cost: $100,828 Additional Vehicle Service Hours: 1,108 VSH annually

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 44 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Introduce New Route to Western Roseville Several residential complexes listed in Exhibit 3.1.5 are not directly served by Roseville Transit. Given lack of transit accessibility, we recommend the City develop a new route providing service between western Roseville and the Roseville Galleria. The route would originate at the Roseville Galleria, head west on Roseville to Pleasant Grove Parkway turning north onto Fiddyment Road. It would then travel northwest onto Hayden Parkway and along Summerland Way onto Corin Drive. The alignment would then return onto Hayden Parkway and run along Del Webb Boulevard heading on Blue Oaks Blvd before terminating at the Galleria. Ultimately, the alignment would head back on Pleasant Grove Boulevard until reaching the Galleria.

Recommended stops:  Siena Apartments (2501 Hayden Pkwy),  Sutter Terrace Apartments (6725 Fiddyment Road),  Safeway (Blue Oaks Blvd and Woodcreek Blvd), and  Crocker Oaks Apartments (8000 Painted Desert Dr.)

Exhibit 3.1.11 Proposed Western Roseville Route Alignment

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 45 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

The above scenario translates to 54 minutes of travel time (60-minute headway) and 16.8 miles of service per trip (Exhibit 3.1.7).

Ridership Forecast: >27,000 annually Operating Cost: $371,280 Vehicle Service Hours: 4,080 VSH annually

Include Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd Transfer Point as a West Roseville Specific Plan Shuttle Stop On January 4, 2006, the City of Roseville and developers entered into a Development Agreement Amendment following the rendering of a court-related decision. The agreement established a Transit Shuttle Service fee of $52.50 to be collected from the developers per dwelling unit equivalent. The purpose of the fee is to provide for the capital and operating costs of a shuttle service from the WRSP to the Watt Avenue Light Rail Station. It was agreed the service would begin shortly after the issuance of the 3,000th building permit in the WRSP.

The City of Roseville expects the 3,000th building permit to be issued in FY 2012/13 or FY 2013/14. We recommend the City design the shuttle’s route to travel to the Louis Lane/Orlando transfer point to provide additional connections to Placer County Transit and SacRT. Given the proposed renovations and relocation of the Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd transfer point, the new shuttle would serve as an attractive mobility option for residents within the West Roseville Specific Plan area.

Consider Extending Service South Along the I-80 Corridor In the long-term, we recommend the City introduce a service that provides a connection between Sierra College, Heald College and the Sierra Gardens transfer point. Upon arrival at the Sierra Gardens transfer point, the new route could either spend time to travel to the east side of the city limits along Douglas Blvd and connect with the Taylor Road Shuttle, or it could continue to travel along the I-80 corridor down to American River College where it would connect with Sacramento Regional Transit. By traveling to the American River Junior College, we believe this alignment would provide an excellent linkage between population centers and educational institutions in the area. The details of this recommendation would be refined as the City continues discussions with the County, Sacramento RT, and other providers in the region.

Capital Improvements Evaluate Transfer Points We recommend the City review each transfer point, notably Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd and Civic Center to assess the safety, impact on the transit system, patron accommodations, and accessibility. Given the high incidence of use of these transfer points, we recommend the City invest in actual aesthetic upgrades to these transfer stops (aka stop amenity improvements). As presented in Section 3.4 – Transfer Analysis, during high outdoor temperatures the orientation of the Civic Center bus shelters proved inadequate in providing shade or proper ventilation during patron wait times. Additionally, the Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd transfer point experiences

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 46 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

high volume of patrons utilizing the location for transfers to/from Sacramento RT and PCT warranting enhancement of the facility. At the time of this report, the City received funding for the development of a Park & Ride facility at this location. We recommend the City complete the proposed Park & Ride Feasibility Study to determine the value of developing a Park & Ride component at the Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd transfer point.

New Maintenance Facility As discussed in the South County Master Transit Plan (2005), the City should undertake additional research to identify the site and cost of developing a new transit maintenance facility. The current facility is insufficient in terms of capacity to accommodate the anticipated growth of the Roseville Transit fleet. Furthermore, the City should explore the feasibility of constructing a joint facility with Placer County Transit. Details regarding the facility are discussed in the Capital Plan – Facilities Element.

Summary of Alternative B Recommendations  Adjust wait/transfer times to enhance inter-service connectivity.  Extend weekday hours of operation.  Modify operating schedules so as to improve on-time performance.  Introduce policy governing introduction of new routes.  Conduct Park & Ride Feasibility study.  Conduct Transfer Point Locational study.  Conduct annual community survey.  Enhance Marketing efforts.  Establish new stops along Route S.  Reduce Routes C and G runs during the late afternoon.  Coordinate Roseville’s Dial-A-Ride services with Placer County’s Dial-A-Ride services.  Expand service to new and existing developments.  Modify Route M.  Modify Routes D/I.  Modify Route L.  Extend Route R.  Introduce Western Roseville route.  Include Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd transfer point as a West Roseville Specific Plan Shuttle stop.  Enhance bus stop amenities and transfer points.

Advantages  Ridership and revenue growth.  Improved on-time performance.  Increased customer satisfaction.  Increase service connectivity and coordination.  Enhanced awareness and ridership in previously “underserved” areas.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 47 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

 Increased customer awareness of Roseville Transit.  Reduction in service overlap.  Increase student ridership.  Enhanced amenities at transfer points.  Reduce transfer penalty/wait times.

Disadvantages  Increase operating cost.  Increased capital cost.  Increased marketing cost.  Possible short-term drop in farebox recovery while new services take hold and attract ridership.

The table below presents both scenarios operations recommendations in order of priority, displaying additional vehicles needed, total vehicle service hours for each recommendation, forecasted ridership, and potential operating cost to implement each recommendation.

Exhibit 3.1.12 Priority of Implementation (Recommendations) Additional Vehicle Vehicles Service Forecast Operating Priority AlternativeOperation Recommendations Needed Hours Ridership Cost 0 A Extend service hours to 9:30 p.m. - - - $663,818 0 A Modify transit schedule - - - - 1 B Reduce C & G in the afternoon and realign 1 3,596 >24,000 $327,236 1 B WRSP Shuttle - - - - 2 B Modify Route L - 4,395 >30,000 $399,945 2 B Modify Route S - 4,539 >31,000 $413,049 2 B Extend Route R - 4,909 >32,000 $446,719 3 B Modify Route M - 2,618 >18,400 $238,238 3 B Modify Route D/I 1 4,463 >31,000 $406,133 4 B West Roseville Route 2 4,080 >27,000 $371,280 Total 4 28,600 >203,000 $3,266,418

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 48 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

SECTION 3.2 – CAPITAL AND FINANCIAL PLANS

This section presents capital requirements and seven-year operating budget projections required to support the recommendations presented within the Preferred Alternatives section (Section 3.1). Two distinct scenarios (Alternatives A and B) were developed by Moore & Associates.

This section includes four sub-sections – the Capital Improvement Program presenting recommendations for improvement of transit infrastructure and expansion, a Capital Plan forecasting capital costs associated with implementing these recommendations, a Financial Plan estimating the cost of implementing each scenario outlined in Preferred Alternatives section (Section 3.1), and a matrix of potential capital and operating funding sources.

Capital Improvement Program The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) presents a framework for the ongoing development of the infrastructure necessary for the efficient provision of public transit service throughout City of Roseville. This element includes an inventory of all vehicles, amenities, and facilities currently in use, as well as a strategy for the development of additional capital resources across the next five years to support transit service enhancements and ultimately increase Roseville Transit’s share of those trips made within the community.

The CIP is divided into three elements: fleet, bus stops, and facilities. Each plays a critical role in the efficient provision of public transit services within the city. Within each element we outline existing conditions followed by discussion of the steps needed to support recommended service changes as well as respond to community input arising throughout the Short Range Transit Plan process.

Revenue Fleet Fleet development is crucial to the continued success of Roseville Transit. The cleanliness and reliability of rolling stock plays a vital role in retaining and attracting “choice riders.” While ride- dependent customers may reflect a greater tolerance for an outdated fleet, “choice riders” expect newer vehicles with more amenities. Given Roseville Transit is moving towards a CARB diesel-powered fleet, maintenance and proper timing of vehicle replacement is critical in resource management and sustainability of the transit program. The following is a discussion of each transit service’s operational vehicle fleet, which includes Roseville Transit’s fixed-route, Commuter Bus, and Dial-A-Ride services.

The City is in the process of replacing and expanding its fleet. In recent years, the Roseville city council expressed reservations regarding expanding Roseville Transit’s fleet to include larger fixed-route vehicles. These concerns can be attributed chiefly to the perceived higher cost to operate and maintain such vehicles. In 2007, Roseville prepared a Fleet Utilization and Purchase Plan including a purchasing schedule for replacing vehicles in the two years to follow. The Plan laid out the actual cost/benefits to operate larger heavy-duty buses over smaller transit vehicles

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 49 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

(cutaways) for the fixed-route service. Associated costs (more than 1/3 of the purchase cost) would be recovered from funding sources such as FTA and CMAQ grant funds. In addition to these funding sources, the City would maintain a bus purchase reserve fund specifically designed to assist with funding vehicle purchases. No general fund monies would be used for bus fleet purchases.

In 2009, an amendment to the City’s prior Short Range Transit Plan was presented to the city council to gain approval for the rehabilitation and remanufacturing of older transit buses (nine vehicles) with the new branding scheme. The amendment also sought approval to use federal stimulus (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) funding to extend the life of Roseville Transit’s fleet. This approach of using ARRA funds would thereby reduce bus replacement, maintenance, and fuel costs resulting from the rehabilitation of nine vehicles. Recently, the City purchased two vehicles for fixed-route use, one 30-foot transit bus, and six Dial-A-Ride replacement vehicles. Total cost to purchase these vehicles was $3,283,326, subsidized with state ($699,495) and federal ($2,741,278) funding.

Exhibit 3.2.1 includes detailed information for each vehicle in Roseville Transit’s fixed-route fleet. Roseville Transit’s fixed-route fleet is composed of 14 buses ranging in size from 30-foot heavy-duty transit buses to 29-foot low-floor transit buses. The City plans to maintain a local fixed-route fleet of 35-foot and 30-foot transit buses. The majority of the fixed-route fleet is diesel, with four vehicles running on compressed natural gas (CNG). The current 29-foot buses are low-floor buses. Every vehicle is wheelchair accessible and equipped with two onboard wheelchair positions. At this time, Roseville Transit is moving toward low-floor 35-foot CARB diesel vehicles for its fixed-route fleet.

Factoring in interlining of Routes C and G, as well as Routes D, L, and I, Roseville Transit requires nine vehicles to operate the 10 fixed-routes during peak hours. With 14 active vehicles in operation, the City’s spare ratio is 56 percent (five spare vehicles for every nine vehicles in revenue service). This spare ratio is more than sufficient to meet the City’s needs.

Exhibit 3.2.1 Fixed-Route Fleet

Start Fuel Standing Low- Date Added Vehicle # Year Make Model Length Seats Lift Period Type Capacity Floor to Service Mileage

1 01-376 2001 Gillig Phantom Diesel 30' 28 14 No Yes 363,576 2001/2002 2 01-377 2001 Gillig Phantom Diesel 30' 28 14 No Yes 365,985 2001/2002 3 01-400 2001 Gillig Phantom Diesel 30' 28 14 No Yes 394,909 2001/2002 4 01-401 2001 Gillig Phantom Diesel 30' 28 14 No Yes 381,365 2001/2002 5 03-475 2003 Orion V N/A CNG 30' 28 14 No Yes 262,392 2003/2004 6 03-477 2003 Orion V N/A CNG 30' 28 14 No Yes 220,521 2003/2004 7 03-478 2003 Orion V N/A CNG 30' 28 14 No Yes 247,327 2003/2004 8 03-479 2003 Orion V N/A CNG 30' 28 14 No Yes 258,055 2003/2004 9 09-414 2009 Gillig SL-63752 Diesel 29' 28 N/A Yes N/A 51,871 7/17/2009 10 09-415 2009 Gillig SL-63752 Diesel 29' 28 N/A Yes N/A 36,502 7/23/2009 11 09-416 2009 Gillig SL-63752 Diesel 29' 28 N/A Yes N/A 30,213 7/23/2009 12 09-417 2009 Gillig SL-63752 Diesel 29' 28 N/A Yes N/A 36,998 7/23/2009 13 09-418 2009 Gillig SL-63752 Diesel 29' 28 N/A Yes N/A 32,585 7/23/2009 14 09-419 2009 Gillig SL-63752 Diesel 29' 28 N/A Yes N/A 38,860 7/17/2009 Source: City of Roseville

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 50 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

The City’s Commuter Bus Service offers nine morning and nine evening peak-hour commute trips between downtown Sacramento and various locations within Roseville. The Commuter Bus Service fleet consists of eleven 40’ diesel-powered transit buses. Passenger amenities include LED overhead reading lights, high-back upholstered seats, and foot-rests. The City recently expanded its commuter bus fleet by two vehicles, totaling $864,360 and funded largely with state ($252,000) and federal monies ($600,000).

During weekday peak hour travel, Roseville requires nine vehicles to operate commuter routes. This translates to a spare ratio of 22 percent (two spares for every nine vehicles in revenue service) which exceeds the FTA-established spare ratio of 20-percent for 50 or more vehicles. Currently Roseville Transit’s fleet consists of 45 vehicles. Although, Roseville Transit does not have a fleet size of 50 or more vehicles, we suggest the City maintain a spare ratio of at least 20 percent. Exhibit 3.2.2 Commuter Bus Service Fleet

Start Date Standing Vehicle # Year Make Model Fuel Type Length Seats Low-Floor Lift Period Added to Capacity Mileage Service 1 00-461 2000 Gillig N/A Diesel 40' 45 14 No Yes 239,164 2000/2001 2 00-462 2000 Gillig N/A Diesel 40' 45 14 No Yes 291,988 2000/2001 3 00-464 2000 Gillig N/A Diesel 40' 45 14 No Yes 306,314 2000/2001 4 00-465 2000 Gillig N/A Diesel 40' 45 14 No Yes 285,834 2000/2001 5 09-408 2009 Gillig SL-63964-79979 Diesel 40' 39 15 Yes N/A 20,172 7/18/2009 6 09-409 2009 Gillig SL-63964-79979 Diesel 40' 39 15 Yes N/A 17,747 7/23/2009 7 09-410 2009 Gillig SL-63964-79979 Diesel 40' 39 15 Yes N/A 17,753 7/23/2009 8 09-411 2009 Gillig SL-63964-79979 Diesel 40' 39 15 Yes N/A 18,872 7/23/2009 9 09-412 2009 Gillig SL-63964-79979 Diesel 40' 39 15 Yes N/A 12,214 7/23/2009 10 09-497 2009 Gillig SL-63964-79979 Diesel 40' 39 15 Yes N/A 16,754 7/23/2009 11 09-498 2009 Gillig SL-63964-79979 Diesel 40' 39 15 Yes N/A 19,306 7/23/2009 Source: City of Roseville

Roseville Transit’s Dial-A-Ride program is a curb-to-curb service operating within the fixed-route service area. The Dial-A-Ride fleet is composed of ten “cutaway” vehicles. All DAR vehicles are ADA-compliant with wheelchair access and lifts, varying in capacity between 11 and 15 passengers. The vehicles have large, electronic head signs on the exterior of the vehicle with sturdy hand-rails and guide lights for added safety. The entire DAR fleet is diesel-powered, with eight of the ten vehicles purchased in 2008. Exhibit 3.2.3 Dial-A-Ride Fleet Date Fuel Standing Low Start Period Vehicle # Year Make Model Length Seats Lift Added to Type Capacity Floor Mileage Service 1 03-308 2003 El Dorado Cutaway Diesel 23' 15 2 No Yes 201,319 2003/2004 2 03-310 2003 El Dorado Cutaway Diesel 23' 15 2 No Yes 191,739 2003/2004 3 08-444 2008 El Dorado Aerolite 200 Type 1B Diesel 21' 11 4 No Yes 50,928 8/31/2008 4 08-445 2008 El Dorado Aerolite 200 Type 1B Diesel 21' 11 4 No Yes 42,372 8/31/2008 5 08-446 2008 El Dorado Aerolite 200 Type 1B Diesel 21' 11 4 No Yes 48,545 8/31/2008 6 08-447 2008 El Dorado Aerolite 200 Type 1B Diesel 21' 11 4 No Yes 57,465 8/31/2008 7 08-466 2008 El Dorado Aerolite 200 Type 1B Diesel 21' 11 4 No Yes 45,419 8/31/2008 8 08-467 2008 El Dorado Aerolite 200 Type 1B Diesel 21' 11 4 No Yes 46,484 8/31/2008 9 08-468 2008 El Dorado Aerolite 200 Type 1B Diesel 21' 11 4 No Yes 49,526 8/31/2008 10 08-469 2008 El Dorado Aerolite 200 Type 1B Diesel 21' 11 4 No Yes 48,484 8/31/2008 Source: City of Roseville

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 51 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

The Roseville Transit fleet also includes 10 City-owned utility vehicles dedicated for transit- related use including transporting drivers to/from shift start locations. Half of this fleet consists of hybrid vehicles. As presented in Exhibit 3.2.4 the majority of vehicles were purchased within the last five years. We suggest Roseville Transit replace vehicles on a maximum ten-year replacement cycle.

Exhibit 3.2.4 Non-Revenue Transit Vehicle Fleet

End Period Vehicle # Year Make Model Fuel Type Mileage

03-165 2003 Ford 2003 Unleaded 64,096 05-130 2005 Honda 2005 Unleaded Hybrid 61,204 05-131 2005 Honda 2005 Unleaded Hybrid 50,377 07-212 2007 Chevy 2007 Unleaded 23,336 08-288 2008 El Dorado 2008 Unleaded 24,912 08-289 2008 El Dorado 2008 Unleaded 19,476 08-298 2008 El Dorado 2008 Unleaded 40,596 09-135 2009 Toyota Prius Unleaded Hybrid 4,057 10-136 2010 Toyota Prius Unleaded Hybrid 1,422 10-137 2010 Toyota Prius Unleaded Hybrid 2,998 Source: City of Roseville

Fleet Replacement Strategy The fleet replacement strategy is based mainly on FTA-stipulated useful life standards by vehicle type. Other factors contributing to vehicle expansion or replacement are existing and recommended spare ratios and adjustments to service levels.

The scenarios proposed in the Preferred Alternatives Section (Section 3.1) require varying levels of investment in revenue fleet. The table below includes the number of vehicles required to operate each scenario during the proposed peak-hour scenario. Exhibit 3.2.5 illustrates both fixed-route and commuter bus services, which have different spare ratios: 56 percent for fixed-route services and 22 percent for commuter bus services. Note: Routes C and G, as well as Routes D, I, and L interline, respectively. The interlining reduces the total number vehicles needed to operate the system during peak-hours by three.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 52 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit 3.2.5 Peak-Hour Buses by Scenario Current Alternative A Alternative B Fixed-Route Services Route A 2 2 2 Route B 2 2 2 Route C 1 1 1 Route D 1 1 1 Route G - - 1 Route I - - - Route L - - - Route M 1 1 1 Route R 1 1 1 Route S 1 1 1 Western Roseville Route - - 2 Spare 5 5 7 Total 14 14 19 Commuter Service Placer Commuter Express 9 9 9 Spare 2 2 2 Total 11 11 11

We believe Roseville Transit’s fixed-route 56 percent spare ratio during peak-hours (i.e., five spare vehicles for every nine in revenue service) contributes positively to the program’s ability to minimize lapses in service due to maintenance issues. However, the additional capital costs associated with purchasing the extra vehicles needed to maintain the spare ratio could be spent in enhancing bus stop amenities or purchasing larger vehicles offering greater seating capacity. As discussed in the chapter, the City is proactive in maintaining alternative transportation facilities and vehicles. Although this is a relatively high spare ratio when compared to the 25-percent APTA guidelines, industry research reveals spare ratios vary greatly depending upon size of transit operation as well as other variables such as operating environment, age of fleet, and urban versus rural or suburban service. In addition, the APTA spare ratio rules apply mostly to operations with more than 50 buses, and therefore allow smaller transit agencies to determine the appropriate spare ratio based on local conditions.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) regulations stipulate large, heavy-duty vehicles—such as those in Roseville Transit’s commuter bus fleet—must be operated in revenue service at least 12 years (or 500,000 miles, whichever comes first) in order to be eligible for replacement funding. Replacing vehicles on the 12-year cycle would ultimately reduce maintenance costs as the average age of the fleet would be reduced versus waiting longer to replace individual vehicles. The Commuter Bus Service fleet is also on a 12-year vehicle replacement plan. This replacement schedule is presented in Exhibit 3.2.6.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 53 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Medium-sized, heavy-duty transit buses (30 to 35-feet in length) have a minimum service life of 10 years or 350,000 miles, whichever comes first. Roseville has eight 30-foot transit buses used for fixed-route service. Given these vehicles were purchased about ten years ago we anticipate replacement of these vehicles across the next few years.

FTA regulations also stipulate light-duty mid-sized buses including cutaways (16 to 25-feet in length) have a minimum service life of five years or 150,000 miles, whichever comes first. The City’s Dial-A- Ride fleet consists largely of cutaways with a minimum service life of four to five years.

The replacement schedule is applicable to all three service alternatives. Fleet replacement is based on the FTA “useful life” standards adopted for specific vehicle types. Following the FTA regulations ensures the City is eligible for Federal funding for vehicle replacement.

In reviewing Exhibit 3.2.6, in FY 2012/13 the City will need to replace four fixed-route vehicles, followed by four fixed-route vehicles in FY 2015/16, and another six fixed-route vehicles in FY 2018/19. Based on the replacement schedule, Roseville will also need to replace four commuter vehicles in FY 2016/17 and perform an overhaul of six commuter vehicles the following fiscal year. Depending upon funding availability, it may be infeasible to replace 13 vehicles over a three year span. As presented in Exhibit 3.2.6, two Dial-A-Ride vehicles have surpassed the minimum service life and service mileage mark (150,000 miles) recommended by FTA. We recommend the City replace these vehicles across the next fiscal year. Additionally, the City will replace eight DAR vehicles in FY 2012/13. Replacement according to the recommended time frame would spread out funding needs and capital purchases not only in the short-term, but in the long-term as well.

Exhibit 3.2.7 represents the purchase schedule for additional vehicles needed to operate and implement some of the proposed recommendations. As presented in the chart below, we suggest vehicles be purchased the fiscal year prior to the launch of new services and programs.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 54 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit 3.2.6 Proposed Fleet Replacement Strategy ROSEVILLE TRANSIT FLEET REPLACEMENT AND OVERHAUL SCHEDULE Model Replacement FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY Vehicle Type Mode Year Year 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 BUS FLEET 01-376 2001 30' Gillig Phantom Local Service 2016 Overhaul Replace 01-377 2001 30' Gillig Phantom Local Service 2016 Overhaul Replace 01-400 2001 30' Gillig Phantom Local Service 2016 Overhaul Replace 01-401 2001 30' Gillig Phantom Local Service 2016 Overhaul Replace 03-475 2003 30' Orion V (CNG) Local Service 2013 Replace 03-477 2003 30' Orion V (CNG) Local Service 2013 Replace 03-478 2003 30' Orion V (CNG) Local Service 2013 Replace 03-479 2003 30' Orion V (CNG) Local Service 2013 Replace 09-414 2009 29' Gillig LF Local Service 2019 Replace 09-415 2009 29' Gillig LF Local Service 2019 Replace 09-416 2009 29' Gillig LF Local Service 2019 Replace 09-417 2009 29' Gillig LF Local Service 2019 Replace 09-418 2009 29' Gillig LF Local Service 2019 Replace 09-419 2009 29' Gillig LF Local Service 2019 Replace 03-311 2003 *23' El Dorado Cutaway DAR Service 2012 Replace Replace 03-308 2003 *23' El Dorado Cutaway DAR Service 2012 Replace Replace 03-310 2003 *23' El Dorado Cutaway DAR Service 2012 Replace Replace 08-444 2008 *21' El Dorado Cutaway DAR Service 2013 Replace Replace 08-445 2008 *21' El Dorado Cutaway DAR Service 2013 Replace Replace 08-446 2008 *21' El Dorado Cutaway DAR Service 2013 Replace Replace 08-447 2008 *21' El Dorado Cutaway DAR Service 2013 Replace Replace 08-466 2008 *21' El Dorado Cutaway DAR Service 2013 Replace Replace 08-467 2008 *21' El Dorado Cutaway DAR Service 2013 Replace Replace 08-468 2008 *21' El Dorado Cutaway DAR Service 2013 Replace Replace 08-469 2008 *21' El Dorado Cutaway DAR Service 2013 Replace Replace 00-461 2000 40' Gillig Transit Bus Commuter Service 2017 Overhaul Replace 00-462 2000 40' Gillig Transit Bus Commuter Service 2017 Overhaul Replace 00-464 2000 40' Gillig Transit Bus Commuter Service 2017 Overhaul Replace 00-465 2000 40' Gillig Transit Bus Commuter Service 2017 Overhaul Replace 09-408 2009 40' Gillig BRT LF Commuter Service 2021 Overhaul 09-409 2009 40' Gillig BRT LF Commuter Service 2021 Overhaul 09-410 2009 40' Gillig BRT LF Commuter Service 2021 Overhaul 09-411 2009 40' Gillig BRT LF Commuter Service 2021 Overhaul 09-412 2009 40' Gillig BRT LF Commuter Service 2021 Overhaul 09-497 2009 40' Gillig BRT LF Commuter Service 2021 Overhaul 09-498 2009 40' Gillig BRT LF Commuter Service 2021 Overhaul FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 FY17/18 FY18/19 FY20/21 FY21/22 FY22/23 Total Replacement 3 12 0 0 4 4 0 9 8 Total Overhaul 8 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 LIGHT DUTY FLEET 08-288 Chevy Amerivan Utility 2013/2021 Replace Replace 08-289 Chevy Amerivan Utility 2013/2021 Replace Replace 08-298 Chevy Amerivan Utility 2013/2021 Replace Replace 05-130 Honda Civic Hybrid Utility 2013/2021 Replace Replace 05-131 Honda Civic Hybrid Utility 2013/2021 Replace Replace 07-212 Chevy Pickup Utility 2014/2022 Replace Replace 09-135 Toyota Prius Utility 2016/2023 Replace Replace 10-136 Toyota Prius Utility 2016/2023 Replace Replace 10-137 Toyota Prius Utility 2016/2023 Replace Replace FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 FY17/18 FY18/19 FY20/21 FY21/22 FY22/23 Total Replacement 0 0 0 5 1 3 0 0 0 5 1 3 Source: City of Roseville

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 55 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 56 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit 3.2.7 Additional Bus Purchase Schedule Operation FY FY FY FY FY Alternative Vehicle Type Mode Purchase Year Recommendations 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 B Increase Route G Headways 30'/35' Low Floor Transit Bus Fixed Route 2012 B Modify Route D/I 30'/35' Low Floor Transit Bus Fixed Route 2014 B West Roseville Rotue 30'/35' Low Floor Transit Bus Fixed Route 2016 B West Roseville Rotue 30'/35' Low Floor Transit Bus Fixed Route 2016

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 57 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Bus Stop Element This portion of the Capital Improvement Program includes an inventory of current bus stop amenities as well as a strategy for their enhancement.

The City currently has three different types of bus stops: 1. Stops with sign poles, 2. Stops with benches, and 3. Stops with shelters.

Bus shelters play a critical role in the success of a public transit program. Shelters build awareness of the service and can generate advertising revenue. Yet first and foremost, they contribute toward transit rider safety and comfort. Industry research has confirmed bus shelters also play a vital role in attracting additional ridership. The absence of adequate amenities at bus stops can deter both potential and existing patrons from using transit given the relative comfort and convenience inherent in a personal vehicle.

The City has been proactive in their approach towards maintaining the overall appearance and functionality of its transit facilities and bus stops. Recently, the City completed installation of four bus shelters, landscaping, pedestrian walkways, bike access/equipment and ADA access improvements as part of the Riverside Streetscape Improvement project. The project cost totaled $1,122,072 and was largely funded through federal monies ($895,092).

To determine which stops lack adequate amenities (i.e., benches, bus stop signs, info-posts, shelters, and trash receptacles) or aesthetic improvement, we assessed each stop across all Roseville Transit routes. Overall, Roseville Transit bus stop signage was installed in visible locations, with paid advertising and route information available at most stops. Highly patronized stops were equipped with shelters and benches, with few stops needing additional maintenance. As discussed in Section 3.4 – Transfer Analysis, the City should consider replacing some shelters (i.e., Civic Center) or modify the orientation of the shelters to account for inclement weather or temperatures.

Although a majority of stops are equipped with some form of lighting (i.e., street lamp posts, local business lighting, etc.) within a reasonable distance of its locations, lighting remains a concern especially in areas such as the Louis Lane/Orlando Avenue transfer point. Insufficient lighting often creates a security issue as patrons must wait in the dark where they cannot be seen by passing motorists as well as making them more susceptible to crime. Poor lighting also increases the likelihood buses will fail to see waiting customers and bypass them. This problem can be solved either through the installation of improved street lighting, or the use of new, solar-powered, lighted sign posts such as the i-STOP offered by Carmanah Technologies. These sign posts include service information and a user-activated strobe light to alert buses to the presence of waiting patrons. The posts are solar-powered and do not require extensive trenching for their installation, making them ideal for addressing these concerns in less-developed portions of a service area, as well as improving transit brand visibility.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 58 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

The table below illustrates recommendations for new stops deemed necessary to support each of the proposed operating scenarios. Given any service expansion would require the installation of new sign posts, we recommend the City consider this as an opportunity to explore the use of new technologies aimed at enhancing the overall transit experience.

Exhibit 3.2.8 Proposed Stops for Alternative B Recommendations Recommended New Stops

Vintage Square Apartments Route M Proposed Highland Creek Apartments

Crocker Oaks Apartments

Route R Propsoed

Walmart Supercenter (located off Highway 65)

Route S Thunder Valley Casino Proposed

Siena Apartments

Safeway

Route Crocker Oaks Apartments Proposed

Sutter Terrace Apartments Western Roseville

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 59 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Facilities Element Existing Facilities All buses in the Commuter Bus Service, local fixed-route, and Dial-A-Ride programs are stored and maintained by the City of Roseville at the Roseville Corporation Yard. The Corporation Yard is located at 2005 Hilltop Circle off PFE Road in the southern portion of the city. This location houses an administrative office, dispatch area, drivers room, and maintenance facility.

Roseville Transit utilizes four main transfer points: Civic Center, Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd., Roseville Galleria Mall, and Sierra Gardens. One additional transfer point is located at the corner of Woodcreek Oaks Blvd. and Junction Blvd. and is referred to as the Junction Transfer point. The following is a brief discussion of each station’s amenities and current capacity.

Civic Center Transfer Point. The Civic Center Transfer Point is located adjacent to Roseville’s Civic Center at 311 Vernon Street. The transfer point is equipped with two pitch-roofed shelters (one on either side of the street), benches, adequate lighting, and trash receptacles. This bus stop provides access to Roseville Transit routes (Routes A, B, D, I, and L), commuter bus service, and Amtrak.

Our inspection of transfer point amenities revealed that although shelters were aesthetically pleasing and well-maintained, high temperatures during midday (i.e., temperatures above 100 degrees) became unbearable due to the lack of ventilation and vents within the shelter. On-site observations showed passengers often stood outside the shelter because the placement of the shelter was oriented in the direct path of the sun.

Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd Transfer Point. The transfer point is located on Louis Lane between Orlando Blvd and Whyte Avenue. The Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd transfer point provides connections between Routes A, B, and R as well as intercity connections via Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT), Roseville Commuter Bus, and Placer County Transit. This is the only stop within Roseville which provides connections to SacRT. This transfer center accommodates six buses at one time.

Passenger amenities are limited to two flat-roofed double-opening bus shelters located on either side of Louis Lane. Shelters are equipped with suspended benches and trash receptacles located outside the bus shelter. The transfer point is located between a gas station and large parking lot of an adjacent business. Given the high incidence of ridership of this transfer point,

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 60 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

we recommend the City invest in maintenance and the beautification of this transfer stop thereby providing more comfort and safety to all Roseville and regional passengers.

Each passenger shelter is equipped with system information. During the survey period, it was noticed during several instances, bicycles were locked up to the bus stop sign post. We recommend installing a bike rack or lockers near the passenger shelter.

Safety concerns associated with this location include the visibility of the passenger waiting areas from any main road or activity center. The bus stops are currently located off the main road (Auburn Boulevard) behind a Shell gas station, wherein waiting passengers may be vulnerable to crime when no one is around. Assuring appropriate lighting is maintained at this location should be a high priority to enhance passenger safety.

In April 2011, the City requested a 20-month extension for the STIP funds programmed for Right of Way and Construction for the Louis/Orlando Transfer Point Project (PPNO 3147), a multi- jurisdictional project in coordination with the City of Citrus Heights, Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT), Placer County Transit (PCT), and Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG).

The purpose of the Louis/Orlando Transfer Point project is to enhance the existing infrastructure to accommodate more buses and add amenities such as a restroom facility, fare purchases, bus arrival signs, pedestrian and bike improvements, lights and security cameras. Additionally, it is the intention of the City to purchase adjacent land to the transfer point to develop a park and ride lot to accommodate commuter vehicles.

Roseville Galleria Transfer Point. The Galleria Transfer Point is located on the west side of the Galleria Mall (1151 Galleria Blvd) in Roseville. Roseville Transit Routes A, B, M, and S meet at this transfer stop. Placer County Transit and Roseville Commuter Bus also depart from this stop at a location off the main road (Roseville Parkway) directly adjacent to the Galleria transfer point.

Passenger amenities at the Roseville Transit stop include four open shelters arranged in a linear fashion within the Galleria’s parking lot with two trash receptacles at and next to the bus stop. Each shelter is equipped with suspended benches as well as advertisements placed on the interior and exterior walls. System and route-specific information are located on the back interior wall of the shelter. Although shelter lighting is not available, lighting is provided by parking lot lamps located near the stop. On-site observation concluded limited lighting at the stop which may be a safety concern for patrons connecting to Roseville Local, Commuter Bus, or Placer County Transit services for early morning or later evening trips.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 61 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Sierra Gardens Transfer Point. The Sierra Gardens Transfer Point is located on Sierra Gardens Drive between N. Sunrise Blvd and Santa Clara Drive. Patrons can connect to Routes A, B, C, G, and L (via the Sierra Gardens and Santa Clara stop), as well as the Roseville Commuter Service. Route information is available via a system map and flyers/notices of route-specific changes or updates posted on the interior walls of the shelter. The site is equipped with two adjoining flat roof shelters with connected benches. A trash receptacle is located outside of the shelters. Lighting is provided by a lamp post located further west of the shelter. Given Route L is located further down the street we recommend the City revise Route L to stop at the Sierra Gardens stop.

In 2006, the City requested an earmark of $1.5 million from the Transportation and Treasury Appropriations Bill under the Bus & Bus Facilities Account for the Roseville Transfer Point and Bus Facilities Account for the Roseville Transfer Point and Bus Stop Improvement Project.

The project seeks to provide its passengers with a more convenient and comfortable fixed-route service for passengers, reducing miles traveled, and improving pedestrian and bicycle access to transit stops.

The project was prompted by several limiting factors impacting the transit system including challenges with one directional access points (eastbound only) increasing running time of routes by minutes, limited stacking room, and no restroom facilities at the site. It is planned for the Sierra Garden transfer point to relocate to the easterly side of Sierra Gardens Drive and Santa Clara Drive, 500 feet east from its current location.

Junction Transfer Point. The Junction transfer point is located on Junction Blvd. past the intersection of Junction Blvd. and Woodcreek Oaks Blvd. This transfer point provides connections between Routes D, I, and M on their eastbound routes. The stop is located adjacent to a residential complex. When picking up patrons at this stop, Roseville Transit vehicles utilize a merging lane as a buffer from oncoming traffic heading eastbound on Junction Blvd.

The transfer point is equipped with a flat-roof single-opening bus shelter with connected bench. Directly east of the shelter is a trash receptacle. Area lighting is provided by a light post located several feet down the street. We recommend the City provide additional information at this

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 62 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

shelter including a system-map and route schedules for Routes D, I, and M highlighting potential connections to other major transfer points.

Park & Ride Lots The City provides Park & Ride lots throughout Roseville which are served by Roseville Transit fixed-route and commuter bus services. Additionally, the Roseville Amtrak Station is served by Amtrak, Capitol Corridor, Greyhound, and Placer Commuter Express. Based on Roseville’s municipal code, patrons may occupy parking spaces up to 72 hours without being moved. Available parking lot spaces vary between 25 and 150 parking spaces. Some facilities include bike lockers. Park & Ride lots are at the following locations:  Church Street and North Grant Street (Roseville Amtrak Station),  Cirby Way and Orlando Avenue (Light of the Gospel Missionary Church),  Foothills Blvd. and Junction Blvd. (California Family Fitness),  1000 Pleasant Grove Blvd. (Highland Crossing Shopping Center),  Pleasant Grove Blvd. and Michener Drive (Mahany Park),  Maidu Drive and Rocky Ridge Drive (Maidu Regional Park),  Roseville Pkwy and West Drive (Galleria Transfer Point),  Douglas Blvd. and Buljan Drive (Saugstand Park),  Stanford Ranch Road and Five Star Blvd., and  Taylor Road and Eureka Road (Taylor & I-80 – adjacent to Golfland Sunsplash).

New Facilities and Capital Improvements Alternative B under the Preferred Alternatives section (Section 3.1) recommends the expansion of existing service as well as the addition of several new routes. As a result, implementation of Alternative B would require the installation of new bus stops (see Exhibit 3.2.7) and associated bus stop amenities (i.e., shelter, trash receptacles, info-posts, signs, etc.). The City seeks to improve bus stop amenities and facilities across next several years. Projects currently in the pipeline include improvements to transfer points, remodeling of the South Placer Call Center, and other various projects such as the Downtown Roseville Transportation Enhancement Project (see Exhibit 3.2.8 - Capital Plan for cost details).

As presented in the 2005 Transit Master Plan for South Placer County, an “on-site visit of the Corporate Yard maintenance/operations facility revealed that there is insufficient capacity available to accommodate and promote efficient maintenance practices for Roseville.” The City should explore the possibility of partnering with Placer County Transit in developing a joint facility for both PCT and Roseville Transit use. We believe this recommendation is largely relevant given the forecasted growth to occur with the existing and proposed services.

Currently the City is deferring revenue for the development of this facility. We suggest the City conduct a study to identify potential sites for property acquisition for the proposed facility. The anticipated cost of the facility is in the millions (between $20 and $30 million). As presented in

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 63 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

the Capital Plan below, we propose the City begin planning and implementation of the preliminary steps in FY 2012/13 with land purchase, preliminary engineering, rough grade, and frontage improvements. Total expenses for the development of this facility would require increasing maintenance staffing levels in addition to all infrastructure development. Potential coordination for use of the facility by Roseville and the County should be explored.

Capital Plan The Capital Plan identifies cost figures for recommendations included within the Capital Improvement Program as well as associated cost with implementing the recommendations provided in Alternative B. To support the operational recommendations presented in the Capital Improvement Program, we developed a comprehensive fleet replacement strategy which expands Roseville Transit’s fleet size to account for the proposed services.

The seven-year Capital Plan presented herein reflects the capital purchases needed to implement each alternative. The Plan includes additional funds for the growth of the City’s transit system, highlighting purchases of new bus stop amenities corresponding with implementation of new routes, as well as new capital purchases for surveillance on transit vehicles and facilities.

As presented in Exhibit 3.2.8 the proposed replacement schedule (Exhibit 3.2.7) indicates the need to replace four 30-foot medium sized, heavy-duty buses in FY 2010/11. This is based on industry useful life standards for this type of vehicle (i.e., 10 years or 350,000 miles prior to replacement). Additionally, as presented in Exhibit 3.2.7, we proposed four additional buses be purchased in (one vehicle) FY 2012/13, (one vehicle) FY 2014/15, and (two vehicles) FY 2016/17 to support the proposed pilot programs scheduled to be implemented the fiscal year following each purchase. As presented by Exhibit 3.2.8, the Capital Plan extends out to FY 2018/19 (beyond the seven-year planning period) to show future purchases. Two major capital projects – Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd Transfer Point Park & Ride and the Sierra Gardens Transfer Station Improvement – are scheduled for completion in the next few years. Funding for the Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd transfer point project phases will be carried out across a four-year period. Phases include:

 FY 2010/11 (Quarter 4) to FY 2011/12 (Quarters 1 & 2) – Project approval and environmental documentation (PA & ED), consultant selection, and preliminary engineering.  FY 2011/12 (Quarters 3 & 4) to FY 2012/13 (Quarters 1 & 2) - Plan specifics and estimates (PS & E), right of way, acquisition of properties, bid process.  FY 2012/13 (Quarters 3 & 4) – Construction.  Ongoing Administration across the project term.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 64 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit 3.2.8 Capital Plan ROSEVILLE TRANSIT CAPITAL PLAN Previous CIP FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 FY 2018/19 Carryover Number Total Cost Number Total Cost Number Total Cost Number Total Cost Number Total Cost Number Total Cost Number Total Cost Number Total Cost Number Total Cost Fleet Purchases 40-foot LF Transit Bus (BRT-Commuter) (No Proj # Est) 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 4 $1,836,314 0 $0 30/35-foot LF Transit Bus (local buses) (No Proj # Est) 0 $0 0 $0 5 $1,800,000 0 $0 1 $374,544 4 $1,573,085 2 $810,139 0 $0 6 2,571,869 27-foot LF Cutaway (18 passenger) (DAR/local) (Proj # 119003) 3 $486,000 3 $480,000 8 $1,305,600 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 3 552,681 Light Duty Vehicles (No Proj # Est) 5 $190,000 0 $0 0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 0 Repower/Rehab/Rebrand 16 Buses (Proj #s 109004 & 099007) 16 $1,702,393 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 0 Subtotal Fleet Costs 19 $2,188,393 3 $480,000 18 $3,295,600 0 $0 1 $374,544 4 $1,573,085 6 $2,646,453 0 $0 9 3,124,550 Intelligent Transportation Systems Zonar (Proj #099008) 1 $25,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 On-board Video Cameras (Proj #119007) $181,000 $263,827 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transit Kiosks (Proj #119006) $88,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Universal Fare Card (Proj #099007) $395,563 $300,000.0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 Electronic Fareboxes and Fare Equip. Room (Proj #009008) $762,626 $0.0 $0 $22,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Voice Enunciators (Proj #009008) $0.0 $0 1 $237,617 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal ITS Costs $1,158,189 1 $594,000 1 $263,827 1 $260,117 $0 $0 1 $50,000 6 $0 $0 $0 Bus Stop Improvements Standard Sign Posts & Signs (No Proj # Est) $0 15 $3,750 $0 $0 $0 $696 3 $716 $0 $0 Benches (No Proj # Est) $0 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $290 1 $299 $0 $0 Bus Shelters (purchase, remove and install) (Proj #049002) $131,402 3 $45,000 5 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Shelter Improvements (e.g., relocation) (Proj #099012) $0 2 $15,000 1 $123,866 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $100,000 $20,000 $20,000 Subtotal Bus Stop Improvements $131,402 0 $45,000 5 $58,750 1 $123,866 0 $20,000 0 $20,000 0 $20,985 4 $101,015 0 $20,000 0 $20,000 Facilities Projects Roseville Corporation Yard (proj #s 111001 &099007) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Corp Yard Security Project (Proj #111001) $163,449 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Downtown Replacement Bridge (TE) (Proj #119009) $0 $212,611 $581,139 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Dry Creek Greenway (Proj #079003) $60,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Mahany Park Lighting (Proj #800641) $34,687 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transit Operations/Maintenance Facility (Proj #099009) $253,000 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,250,000 $0 $1,250,000 $0 Subtotal Facilities Costs $253,000 $258,136 $2,212,611 $581,139 $0 $0 $1,250,000 $0 $1,250,000 $0 Transfer Point Improvements Downtown Roseville TE (Bus Stops) (Proj #129001) $0 $35,000 $515,000 $0 $0 $0 Taylor/I-80 Bus Stop Improvements (No Proj# Est) $0 $170,000 $0 $0 $0 Louis Lane/Orlando Avenue Transfer Point (Proj #099012) $380,000 $0 $981,250 $1,500,000 0 $2,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sierra Gardens Transfer Point (Proj #099011) $0 $250,000 $625,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Electric Bike Lockers at 4 Txfr Points (from Proj #079003) $0 $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Transfer Point Improvements $380,000 $0 $1,341,250 $2,810,000 $250,000 $2,500,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 $0 Total Annual Capital Costs $1,922,591 8 $3,085,529 $4,356,438 $7,070,722 $270,000 $2,894,544 $2,894,070 $2,747,468 $1,270,000 $3,144,550

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 65 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 66 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Financial Plan The Financial Plan forecasts those expenditures needed to implement the recommendations included within the Service Alternatives Chapter (Section 3.1). Such changes vary in scope from schedule amendments (Alternative A) to an introduction of new routes (Alternative B). Therefore, they vary in cost significantly. The Plan also includes anticipated changes in user fees as well as estimated funding from grant programs supporting the implementation of each proposed service alternative.

Alternative A Financial Plan Seven-year operating expenses have been developed using the following assumptions: 1. All recommendations outlined in Alternative A (Section 3.1) would be implemented across five to seven years starting in FY 2012/13. 2. Purchases of replacement vehicles would occur during the fiscal year identified in the Capital Plan. 3. Other capital purchases would occur during the fiscal year identified in the Capital Plan. 4. Operational costs are based on City-provided data (i.e., Operating Budget, TDA Fiscal Audit, and 2009 Triennial Performance Audit). 5. The rate of inflation is forecast at no greater than two percent/annum, with one percent/annum across the first three planning years. 6. Fixed-route ridership and fare revenue are projected to increase one percent/annum. 7. Dial-A-Ride ridership and fare revenue are projected to increase one percent/annum. 8. Commuter Bus ridership and fare revenue are projected to increase one percent/annum. 9. Vehicle Replacement costs are projected to increase two percent/annum. 10. Any operating expenses not covered through farebox recovery or grants would be covered through local subsidy. 11. Additional capital expenses would be covered through grant funds.

The table below summarizes the effect implementing Alternative A would have on the fixed- route, commuter, and dial-a-ride services. Alternative A recommendations increase operating cost by $658,920. This is largely the result of increasing the hours of operating, which are anticipated to result in increases in both fare revenue and ridership volumes. Vehicle Service Hour calculations are based on City-provided data.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 67

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit 3.2.9 Summary of Alternative A Impact and Cost Alternative A Current Service Hours Scenario Service Difference Annual Operating Cost Alternative A Hours Cost/VSH

Weekly Annually Weekly Annually Weekly Annual Current Alternative A Difference Fixed-Route Route A 153 7,815 183 9,345 30 1,530 $711,154 $850,384 $139,230 Route B 151 7,702 181 9,232 30 1,530 $700,900 $840,130 $139,230 Route C 80 4,090 99 5,047 19 956 $372,230 $459,249 $87,019 Route G Route D $91.00 Route I 159 8,096 186 9,498 28 1,403 $736,729 $864,356 $127,628 Route L Route M 80 4,074 92 4,711 13 638 $370,723 $428,736 $58,013 Route R 22 1,102 22 1,102 0 0 $100,282 $100,282 $0 Route S 50 2,527 60 3,037 10 510 $229,921 $276,331 $46,410 Subtotal 694 35,406 823 41,972 129 6,566 $3,221,939 $3,819,467 $597,529 Dial-A-Ride 275 14,000 290 14,765 15 765 $80.25 $1,123,500 $1,184,891 $61,391 Subtotal 275 14,000 290 14,765 15 765 $1,123,500 $1,184,891 $61,391 Commuter Service 177 9,045 177 9,045 0 0 $74.32 $672,240 $672,240 $0 Subtotal 177 9,045 177 9,045 0 0 $672,240 $672,240 $0 Total 1,146 58,451 1,290 65,782 144 7,331 $5,017,679 $5,676,599 $658,920

Additionally, Exhibit 3.2.10 presents total VSH and Operating Cost based on reported FY 2009/10 VSH data and FY 2010/11 Operating Cost estimate totals. As presented in the table above, route by route estimates reflect the cost to implement service hour extensions during weekday and Saturday service for each service (with the exception of Route R). Operating costs presented in Exhibit 3.2.10 represent total costs incurred to implement individual or interlined route changes across the seven-year planning period.

Farebox revenue is calculated by dividing fare revenue by operating cost. Based on actual City- provided FY 2010/11 data, Roseville’s Farebox Recovery was estimated at 10.3 percent in FY 2010/11. With the adding cost to implement service hour extensions on each route (with the exception of Route R), the Farebox Recovery will experience a modest decline in FY 2014/15 and should begin to increase beyond FY 2017/18.

Exhibit 3.2.10 Impact on Farebox Recovery (Fixed-Route) Farebox Cost Passengers Fare Revenue Recovery FY 2010/11 $2,789,955 258,493 $286,751 10.3% FY 2011/12 $2,873,654 261,078 $296,880 10.3% FY 2012/13 $3,238,323 280,413 $318,866 9.8% FY 2013/14 $3,460,268 287,505 $326,931 9.4% FY 2014/15 $3,687,878 303,245 $344,829 9.4% FY 2015/16 $3,873,884 312,709 $355,592 9.2% FY 2016/17 $3,990,100 315,837 $359,147 9.0% FY 2017/18 $4,109,803 318,995 $362,739 8.8%

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 68

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

With the increase in fixed-route service hours, we anticipate Dial-A-Ride patronage to steadily increase across the seven-year planning period, thereby increasing Farebox Recovery. Service hour extensions are planned for FY 2011/12 and FY 2016/17 following implementation of all fixed-route services.

Exhibit 3.2.11 Impact on Farebox Recovery (Dial-A-Ride) Farebox Cost Passengers Fare Revenue Recovery FY 2010/11 $1,127,108 32,762 $89,474 7.9% FY 2011/12 $1,160,921 34,195 $93,532 8.1% FY 2012/13 $1,195,749 34,536 $97,274 8.1% FY 2013/14 $1,231,621 34,882 $101,165 8.2% FY 2014/15 $1,268,570 35,231 $105,211 8.3% FY 2015/16 $1,306,627 35,583 $109,420 8.4% FY 2016/17 $1,345,826 35,939 $113,796 8.5% FY 2017/18 $1,386,201 36,298 $118,348 8.5%

At this time, no increases to the Commuter Bus Service have been planned. The following represents a one percent rate of inflation per annum in operating cost across the seven-year horizon, projecting a consistent increase in Farebox Recovery.

Exhibit 3.2.12 Impact on Farebox Recovery (Commuter Service) Farebox Cost Passengers Fare Revenue Recovery FY 2010/11 $672,240 109,555 $448,920 66.8% FY 2011/12 $692,407 110,651 $453,409 65.5% FY 2012/13 $713,179 111,757 $457,943 64.2% FY 2013/14 $734,575 112,875 $462,523 63.0% FY 2014/15 $756,612 114,003 $467,148 61.7% FY 2015/16 $779,310 115,143 $471,819 60.5% FY 2016/17 $802,690 116,295 $476,538 59.4% FY 2017/18 $826,770 117,458 $481,303 58.2%

As presented in Exhibit 3.2.13, we recommend Alternative A be implemented as a phased approach. Starting in FY 2012/13, the service will extend the hours of Routes A and B to 9:30 p.m., which will increase operating cost by $278,460. Note: Extending fixed-route service hours will require extending Dial-A-Ride service hours as well. Given Routes A and B have the highest ridership in the Roseville Transit system, they should be a priority in terms of increasing hours of service. As shown in the table, during the next three fiscal years (FY 2013/14 to FY 2015/16), we recommend extending hours for Routes L and M in FY 2013/14, Routes D and I in FY 2014/15; and Routes C and G in FY 2015/16, as well as increase Route G’s frequency.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 69

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit 3.2.13 – Alternative A Operating Cost/Year of Implementation Alternative A Year of Implementation

Routes FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 Route A $139,230 Route B $139,230 Route C $35,165 Route G $16,548 $40,204 Route D $38,696 Route I $38,696 Route L $50,235 Route M $58,013 Route R Route S $46,410 Dial-A-Ride $61,391 Total Operating Cost $0 $339,851 $124,796 $123,802 $75,369 $0 $0

All revenue sources are listed at the top of Exhibit 3.2.14. Revenue sources include paid fares, federal operating grants, federal capital grants, and local subsidy among other revenue resources. The initial “Carryover” in FY 2010/11 is the remaining funds carried over from FY 2009/10. All expenses are listed at the bottom of Exhibit 3.2.14. Expenses include operations and capital outlay (i.e., vehicles, ITS and Equipment software, bus stop amenities, facilities, and transfer points). Factors contributing to increased operating cost in Alternative A include a lengthened service day and increased vehicle service hours. Figures under the “New or Modified Services” represent the aggregate operating cost of implementing the proposed services for each year (see Exhibit 3.2.13 for actual cost of each service).

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 70

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit 3.2.14 Alternative A Financial Plan FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 Revenues Transit Services (Operating Revenues) Rider Fares Local $286,751 $296,880 $318,866 $326,931 $344,829 $355,592 $359,147 $362,739 Dial-A-Ride $89,474 $93,532 $97,274 $101,165 $105,211 $108,420 $113,796 $118,348 Commuter $448,920 $453,409 $457,943 $462,523 $467,147 $471,819 $476,538 $481,303 Interest on Investments $139,968 $141,368 $142,781 $144,209 $145,651 $147,108 $148,579 $150,065 Unrealized Gain/Loss-Investment $33,282 $33,615 $33,951 $34,290 $34,633 $34,980 $35,330 $35,683 SB-325 Allocations (LTF) $2,883,399 $3,989,081 $4,028,972 $4,069,262 $4,150,647 $4,233,660 $4,318,333 $4,404,700 Transportation Assistance Funds (STA) $527,889 $581,661 $587,478 $593,352 $605,219 $617,324 $629,670 $642,264 FTA 5307 ADA and PM (Operations) $585,000 $415,000 $585,000 $585,000 $596,700 $608,634 $620,807 $633,223 FTA 5316 JARC $11,432 $0 $72,000 $72,720 $74,174 $75,658 $77,171 $78,714 FTA 5317 New Freedom $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FTA 5307 ARRA $135,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 From Other Agencies $2,840 $2,868 $2,897 $2,955 $3,014 $3,074 $3,136 $3,199 Accident Expense Recovery $12,226 $39,000 $32,335 $32,982 $33,641 $34,314 $35,001 $35,701 Advertising Revenue $0 $20,000 $60,000 $61,200 $62,424 $63,672 $64,946 $66,245 Reimbursement $961 $8,685 $8,772 $8,947 $9,126 $9,309 $9,495 $9,685 Miscellaneous Revenue $1,754 $3,100 $1,097 $1,119 $1,141 $1,164 $1,187 $1,211 Subtotal Operating Revenues $5,158,896 $6,078,199 $6,429,366 $6,496,656 $6,633,559 $6,764,728 $6,893,135 $7,023,078 Capital Revenues (CIPs) FTA 5307 (Capital) $365,854 $1,283,401 $2,397,444 $0 $1,258,468 $2,469,051 $0 $3,499,640 FTA 5307 Transit Enhancement (TE) $0 $170,089 $464,911 $500,000 $105,080 $107,182 $109,326 $111,512 FTA Section 5309 (Capital) $90,218 $74,000 $57,782 $0 $0 $0 $80,812 $0 FTA 5307 ARRA (Capital) $16,014 $1,198,986 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TSSSDRA $74,686 $52,030 $114,000 $78,282 $79,848 $81,445 $83,074 $84,735 PTMISEA (Prop 1B, Capital) $9,217 $908,437 $1,820,356 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CMAQ (Non Bus Purchase) $0 $0 $0 $342,151 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other State and Local Funds $66,438 $986,325 $2,140,629 $29,002 $4,070,699 $2,637,569 $2,696,772 $4,297,512 State Transportation Improvement Pgm $0 $0 $0 $1,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gain (Loss) on Disposal of Assets $17,798 $13,300 $0 $48,000 $0 $0 $28,000 $28,000 Carryover $7,840,107 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Capital Revenues $8,480,332 $4,686,568 $6,995,122 $2,497,435 $5,514,095 $5,295,247 $2,997,983 $8,021,399 Total Revenue $13,639,228 $10,764,767 $13,424,488 $8,994,091 $12,147,654 $12,059,975 $9,891,118 $15,044,477 Expenditures Transit Services (Operating Cost) Materials/Service/Supplies-Operations $3,813,998 $4,072,655 $4,154,108 $4,583,838 $5,158,934 $5,884,003 $6,714,426 $7,561,457 New or Modified Services-Operations $0 $0 $339,851 $473,940 $609,697 $698,767 $698,767 $698,767 Transit Administration - City $409,705 $424,059 $434,660 $445,527 $456,665 $468,082 $479,784 $491,778 Admin Materials/Service/Supplies $112,637 $123,557 $126,646 $129,812 $133,057 $136,384 $139,793 $143,288 Indirect Costs $121,530 $140,000 $143,500 $147,088 $150,765 $154,534 $158,397 $162,357 Capital and Operating Reserve $6,095,829 $1,648,058 $1,515,000 $2,943,886 $1,545,452 $1,560,906 $1,598,936 $1,592,280 Subtotal Operating Costs $10,553,699 $6,408,329 $6,713,766 $8,724,091 $8,054,569 $8,902,676 $9,790,103 $10,649,928 Capital Plan (CIPs) Fleet $2,188,393 $480,000 $2,935,600 $0 $1,573,085 $1,836,314 $0 $3,124,550 ITS $594,000 $263,827 $260,117 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 Facilities $258,136 $2,212,611 $581,139 $0 $0 $1,250,000 $0 $1,250,000 Bus Stop Improvements $45,000 $58,750 $123,866 $20,000 $20,000 $20,985 $101,015 $20,000 Transfer Point Improvements $0 $1,341,250 $2,810,000 $250,000 $2,500,000 $0 $0 $0 Total Capital Expenditures $3,085,529 $4,356,438 $6,710,722 $270,000 $4,093,085 $3,157,299 $101,015 $4,394,550 Total Expenditures $13,639,228 $10,764,767 $13,424,488 $8,994,091 $12,147,654 $12,059,975 $9,891,118 $15,044,477

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 71

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Alternative B Financial Plan Seven-year operating expenses have been developed using the following assumptions: 1. All recommendations outlined in Alternative A would be implemented across five to seven years starting in FY 2012/13. 2. Purchases of replacement vehicles would occur during the fiscal year identified in the Capital Plan. 3. Other capital purchases would occur during the fiscal year identified in the Capital Plan. 4. Operational costs are based on City-provided data (i.e., Operating Budget, TDA Fiscal Audit, and 2009 Triennial Performance Audit). 5. The rate of inflation is forecast at no greater than two percent/annum, with one percent/annum across the first three planning years. 6. Fixed-route ridership and fare revenue are projected to increase two percent/annum. 7. Dial-A-Ride ridership and fare revenue are projected to increase two percent/annum. 8. Commuter ridership and fare revenue are projected to increase two percent/annum. 9. Vehicle Replacement costs are projected to increase two percent/annum. 10. Any operating expenses not covered through farebox recovery or grants would be covered through local subsidy. 11. Additional capital expenses would be covered through grant funds.

The table below summarizes the effects which implementing Alternative B would have on annual Vehicle Service Hours and operating cost.

Exhibit 3.2.15 Summary of Alternative B Changes and Costs Alternative B Current Service Scenario Service Difference Annual Operating Cost Alternative B Hours Cost/VSH Hours Weekly Annually Weekly Annually Weekly Annual Current Alternative B Difference Fixed-Route Route A 153 7,815 183 9,345 30 1,530 $711,154 $850,384 $139,230 Route B 151 7,702 181 9,232 30 1,530 $700,900 $840,130 $139,230 Route C 80 4,090 71 3,596 -10 -495 $372,230 $327,191 -$45,040 Route G Route D $91.00 Route I 159 8,096 232 11,815 73 3,720 $736,729 $1,075,207 $338,478 Route L Route M 80 4,074 51 2,618 -29 -1,456 $370,723 $238,238 -$132,485 Route R 22 1,102 96 4,909 75 3,807 $100,246 $446,696 $346,451 Route S 50 2,527 89 4,539 39 2,012 $229,921 $413,049 $183,128 Subtotal 694 35,406 903 46,054 209 10,648 $3,221,902 $4,190,895 $968,993 New Proposed Routes $91.00 Western Roseville Route - - 80 4,080 80 4,080 $0 $371,280 $371,280 Subtotal 0 0 80 4,080 80 4,080 $0 $371,280 $371,280 Dial-A-Ride 275 14,000 292 14,765 17 765 $80.25 $1,123,500 $1,184,891 $61,391 Subtotal 275 14,000 292 14,765 17 765 $1,123,500 $1,184,891 $61,391 Commuter Service 4,311 219,841 4,311 219,841 0 0 $74.32 $16,338,583 $16,338,583 $0 Subtotal 4,311 219,841 4,311 219,841 0 0 $16,338,583 $16,338,583 $0 Total 5,279 269,247 5,585 284,740 306 15,493 $20,683,985 $22,085,649 $1,401,664

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 72

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

As shown in Exhibit 3.2.16, Alternative B proposes increasing operating cost by $1,401,664. Note: This operating cost represents the total increase in operating cost across the seven-year planning period.

We recommend the City phase-in Alternative B across the seven-year planning period starting in FY 2011/12. Similar to the Alternative A implementation approach, we recommend extending the hours of operation of Route A and B during the first year of the planning period (FY 2012/13). By implementing recommendations in phases, the City will avoid substantial increases in operating cost occurring during any one fiscal year, thereby providing more time for the City to acquire potential funding sources and building ridership/fare revenue (i.e., operating and capital grant funds) to implement the proposed expansion scenario. We propose changes to Routes C and G be implemented in FY 2012/13, followed by route changes to Routes R in FY 2013/14. If the City decides to modify Routes M and D/I, we recommend this occurs in FY 2014/15.

As presented in Exhibit 3.2.16, Fiscal Years 2012/13 and FY 2017/18 assumes the greatest increase in operating cost due to the introduction of the proposed pilot project (i.e., Western Roseville Route). An increased cost is incurred in FY 2014/15 with the increase in VSH of Routes D and L. Keep in mind this schedule is tentative and may be modified to correspond with available funding during a given year.

Exhibit 3.2.16 Alternative B Operating Cost/Year of Implementation Alternative B Year of Implementation Routes FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 Route A $139,230 Route B $139,230 Route C -$45,040 Route G Route D $338,478 Route I Route L Route M -$132,485 Route R $346,451 Route S $183,128 Dial-A-Ride $61,391 W. Roseville Route $371,280 Total Operating Cost $0 $339,851 -$45,040 $346,451 $205,993 $183,128 $371,280

As shown by Exhibit 3.2.17, we anticipate Farebox Recovery to fluctuate throughout the seven- year planning period in response to the introduction and modifications to existing routes. Note: According to State TDA guidelines, funding recipients may receive exemptions in achieving system Farebox Recovery during the first two years of implementation a new service or route is introduced. This includes route modifications. In light of this exemption, we believe Roseville Transit is able to meet the system 15 percent Farebox Recovery standard due to the high Farebox Recovery generated by the commuter bus service.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 73

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit 3.2.17 Impact on Farebox Recovery (Fixed-Route) Fare Farebox Cost Passengers Revenue Recovery FY 2010/11 $2,789,955 258,493 286,751 10.3% FY 2011/12 $2,873,654 263,663 292,486 10.2% FY 2012/13 $3,238,323 289,723 332,715 10.3% FY 2013/14 $3,290,433 295,518 339,369 10.3% FY 2014/15 $3,735,597 327,291 375,857 10.1% FY 2015/16 $4,053,658 337,765 387,886 9.6% FY 2016/17 $4,358,396 358,191 411,343 9.4% FY 2017/18 $4,860,427 393,071 451,399 9.3%

The impact on Farebox Recovery for Dial-A-Ride service hour extensions shows a slight decline in response to increasing operating cost.

Exhibit 3.2.18 Impact on Farebox Recovery (Dial-A-Ride) Fare Farebox Cost Passengers Revenue Recovery FY 2010/11 $1,127,108 32,762 $89,474 7.9% FY 2011/12 $1,160,921 34,533 $91,263 7.9% FY 2012/13 $1,195,749 35,224 $93,089 7.8% FY 2013/14 $1,231,621 35,928 $94,951 7.7% FY 2014/15 $1,268,570 36,647 $96,850 7.6% FY 2015/16 $1,306,627 37,380 $98,787 7.6% FY 2016/17 $1,345,826 38,127 $100,762 7.5% FY 2017/18 $1,386,201 38,890 $102,778 7.4%

At this time, no planned changes have been proposed for the commuter bus service.

Exhibit 3.2.19 Impact on Farebox Recovery (Commuter Service) Fare Farebox Cost Passengers Revenue Recovery FY 2010/11 $672,240 109,555 $448,920 66.8% FY 2011/12 $692,407 111,746 $457,898 66.1% FY 2012/13 $713,179 113,981 $467,056 65.5% FY 2013/14 $734,575 116,261 $476,397 64.9% FY 2014/15 $756,612 118,586 $485,925 64.2% FY 2015/16 $779,310 120,958 $495,644 63.6% FY 2016/17 $802,690 123,377 $505,557 63.0% FY 2017/18 $826,770 125,844 $515,668 62.4%

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 74

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

All revenue sources are listed at the top of Exhibit 3.2.20. Revenue sources include user fees, federal operating grants, federal capital grants, federal capital grants, local subsidy among other listed revenue resources, and LTF funds. The initial “Carryover” in FY 2010/11 is remaining funds carried over from FY 2009/10. All expenses are listed at the bottom of Exhibit 3.2.20. Expenses include operations and capital outlay (i.e., vehicles, ITS and Equipment software, bus stop amenities, facilities, and transfer points). Factors contributing to increased operating cost include the development of new services/routes and associated costs in sustaining these new programs. Additional funding has been set aside for planned capital improvements in later years. Note “New or Modified Services” costs represent the aggregate operating cost of implementing the proposed services with each year (see Exhibit 3.2.16 for actual cost of each service).

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 75

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit 3.2.20 Alternative B Financial Plan FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 Revenues Transit Services (Operating Revenues) Rider Fares Local $286,751 $292,486 $332,715 $339,369 $375,857 $387,886 $411,343 $451,399 Dial-A-Ride $89,474 $91,263 $93,089 $94,951 $96,850 $98,787 $100,762 $102,778 Commuter $448,920 $457,898 $467,056 $476,397 $485,925 $495,644 $505,557 $515,668 Interest on Investments $139,968 $141,368 $144,195 $147,079 $150,021 $153,021 $156,081 $159,203 Unrealized Gain/Loss-Investment $33,282 $33,615 $54,034 $55,115 $56,217 $57,341 $58,488 $59,658 SB-325 Allocations (LTF) $2,883,399 $3,989,081 $4,028,972 $4,069,262 $4,150,647 $4,233,660 $4,318,333 $4,404,700 Transportation Assistance Funds (STA) $527,889 $581,661 $587,478 $593,352 $605,219 $617,324 $629,670 $642,264 FTA 5307 ADA and PM (Operations) $585,000 $415,000 $585,000 $585,000 $596,700 $608,634 $620,807 $633,223 FTA 5316 JARC $11,432 $0 $150,000 $155,000 $158,100 $161,262 $164,487 $167,777 FTA 5317 New Freedom $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FTA 5307 ARRA $135,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 From Other Agencies $2,840 $2,845 $2,897 $2,955 $3,014 $3,074 $3,136 $3,199 Accident Expense Recovery $12,226 $8,685 $32,335 $32,982 $33,641 $34,314 $35,001 $35,701 Advertising Revenue $0 $3,100 $60,000 $61,200 $62,424 $63,672 $64,946 $66,245 Reimbursement $961 $8,685 $8,772 $8,947 $9,126 $9,309 $9,495 $9,685 Miscellaneous Revenue $1,754 $1,086 $1,097 $1,119 $1,141 $1,164 $1,187 $1,211 Subtotal Operating Revenues $5,158,896 $6,026,773 $6,547,639 $6,622,727 $6,784,883 $6,925,093 $7,079,293 $7,252,709 Capital Revenues (Reimbursements)

FTA 5307 (Capital) $365,854 $1,283,401 $1,247,444 $299,635 $2,008,468 $3,117,162 $0 $3,999,640 FTA 5307 Transit Enhancement (TE) $0 $170,089 $464,911 $500,000 $105,080 $107,182 $109,326 $111,512 FTA Section 5309 (Capital) $90,218 $74,000 $57,782 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 FTA 5307 ARRA (Capital) $16,014 $1,198,986 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TSSSDRA $74,686 $52,030 $114,000 $78,282 $79,848 $81,445 $83,074 $84,735 PTMISEA (Prop 1B, Capital) $9,217 $908,437 $1,820,356 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CMAQ (Non Bus Purchase) $0 $0 $0 $342,151 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other State and Local Funds $66,438 $986,325 $3,723,988 $0 $2,736,335 $1,778,744 $2,000,000 $2,012,474 State Transportation Improvement Pgm $0 $0 $0 $1,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gain (Loss) on Disposal of Assets $17,798 $13,300 $0 $48,000 $0 $0 $28,000 $28,000 Carryover $7,840,107 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Capital Revenues $8,480,332 $4,686,568 $7,428,481 $2,768,068 $4,929,731 $5,084,533 $2,220,399 $6,236,361 Total All Revenues $13,639,228 $10,713,341 $13,976,120 $9,390,796 $11,714,614 $12,009,626 $9,299,693 $13,489,070 FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 FY 2015/16 FY 2016/17 FY 2017/18 Expenditures Transit Services (Operating Cost) Materials/Service/Supplies $3,813,998 $4,072,655 $4,440,087 $4,573,290 $4,710,488 $4,851,803 $4,997,357 $5,147,278 Minor Capital Equipment $36,295 $37,384 $38,505 $39,661 $40,850 $42,076 $43,338 $44,638 New or Modified Services $0 $0 $339,851 $300,707 $660,101 $883,416 $1,087,875 $1,488,338 Transit Administration - City $500,705 $432,508 $445,483 $458,848 $472,613 $486,792 $501,395 $516,437 Materials/Service/Supplies $112,637 $67,996 $68,676 $70,049 $71,450 $72,879 $74,337 $75,824 Capital and Operating Reserve $6,090,064 $1,746,360 $1,572,796 $3,303,697 $1,666,025 $1,705,221 $2,494,375 $1,822,005 Subtotal Operating Costs $10,553,699 $6,356,903 $6,905,399 $8,746,252 $7,621,529 $8,042,187 $9,198,678 $9,094,520 Capital Plan Fleet $2,188,393 $480,000 $3,295,600 $374,544 $1,573,085 $2,646,453 $0 $3,124,550 ITS $594,000 $263,827 $260,117 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 Facilities $258,136 $2,212,611 $581,139 $0 $0 $1,250,000 $0 $1,250,000 Bus Stop Improvements $45,000 $58,750 $123,866 $20,000 $20,000 $20,985 $101,015 $20,000 Transfer Point Improvements $0 $1,341,250 $2,810,000 $250,000 $2,500,000 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal Capital Costs $3,085,529 $4,356,438 $7,070,722 $644,544 $4,093,085 $3,967,438 $101,015 $4,394,550 Total All Expenditures $13,639,228 $10,713,341 $13,976,121 $9,390,796 $11,714,614 $12,009,626 $9,299,693 $13,489,070

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 76

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Funding Sources To fund the proposed service alternatives, including the introduction of the new fixed-route services and route modifications we identified the following funding sources to assist with implementing the proposed recommendations (Section 3.1). The following matrix highlights the specified operating grant (Exhibit 3.2.21) and capital grant (Exhibit 3.2.22) opportunities for service and fleet expansions. Funding sources listed in the exhibits to follow are in addition to LTF and Prop 1B funds received from the state and are primarily short-term sources for funding Roseville Transit’s public transit system. In the interim, these funding sources provide opportunities for implementing enhancements or improvements recommended in the Service Plan Chapter (Chapter 3). As presented in Chapter 3, recommendations include expansion of service to areas of low-income residents (Section 8 housing facilities) as well as enhancements to commuter bus service facilities (i.e., Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd. transfer point) which accommodate inter- and intra-city connections between Sacramento, Roseville, and Placer County. Given the range of recommendations proposed, the City should apply for funding assistance for Section 5316 Job Access/Reverse Commute as well as Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities Grant Program for vehicle fleet expansion and future maintenance facility construction. Given the City currently receives grant funding for operations and capital use, the City should carry out those additional planning activities, including Title VI, to maintain compliance with federal grant funding requirements.

Exhibit 3.2.21 Operating Funding Source Matrix

Program Name Description Eligibility Recipient Grant Type

Provides financial assistance for transportation services planned, 5316 Job Projects must be included in a locally- designed, and carried out to meet Access/Reverse developed cordinated human service State Formula the transportation needs of eligible Commute (JARC) transportation plan. low-income individuals, and of commuters regardless of income.

Reduces barriers to transportation services and expands mobility 5317 New options available to persons with Same as above. State Formula Freedom disabilities beyond the requirements of the ADA.

In addition to the funding sources listed below, the FTA provides funding to public transit agencies in Urbanized Areas (UZAs) for capital purchases under Section 5307. In 2009, the FTA apportioned $5.4 billion in funds directly to 38 urbanized areas over one million in population and 114 urbanized areas with populations between 200,000 and one million for such activities as vehicle replacement, facilities renovation or construction, preventive maintenance, and mobility management. The Sacramento region governed by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) received approximately $37.8 million. In 2009, the City applied to SACOG for $1.35 million for the rehabilitation and remanufacturing of Roseville Transit buses.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 77

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit 3.2.22 Capital Funding Source Matrix

Program Name Description Eligibility Recipient Grant Type

Funding is available for areas that do not Congestion Mitigation Invests in projects that reduce criteria air meet the National Ambient Air Quality and Air Quality pollutants regulated from transportation-related Standards (non-attainment areas) as well State Formula Program (CMAQ) sources. as former non-attainment areas that are now in compliance (maintenance areas). Assists non-attainment and maintenance areas in achieving or maintaining National Ambient Air 5308 Clean Fuels Quality Standards and supports emerging clean Same as above. State Discretionary Grant Program fuel and advanced propulsion technologies for transit buses. Provides capital assistance for new and 5309 Bus and Bus replacement buses and related equipment and All capital projects. State Discretionary Facilities Program facilities. Provides financial assistance for transportation 5316 Job services planned, designed, and carried out to Projects must be included in a locally- Access/Reverse meet the transportation needs of eligible low- developed, human service transportation State Formula Commute income individuals, and of commuters regardless coordination plan. of income. Reduces barriers to transportation services and expands mobility options available to persons 5317 New Freedom Same as above. State Formula with disabilities beyond the requirements of the ADA.

SECTION 3.3 – IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

The Implementation Plan provides a schedule of those tasks anticipated to support introduction of the service recommendations provided in the Service Plan chapter. Each step offers a brief narrative detailing the required resources and probable allocation of the resources.

Alternative A Implementation Implementation of Alternative A requires operational modifications to the City’s current service delivery approach. These include:  Adjust wait/transfer times in schedules,  Adjust transit schedules to reflect new hours of operation and schedule frequency changes,  Inform the community about schedule changes,  Establish a policy for introduction of “new routes” or demonstration projects,  Undertake transit studies to determine feasibility of proposed recommendations, and  Implement new vehicle replacement/procurement strategy focusing on larger vehicles.

Exhibit 3.3.1 illustrates a projected timeline for implementation of the recommendations proposed in Alternative A. The timeline includes ongoing tasks such as marketing new schedule changes and replacement of existing stop signs in need of improvement.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 78

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit 3.3.1 Preferred Implementation Schedule A FY 2011/12 TASKS FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 QUARTER 1 QUARTER 2 QUARTER 3 QUARTER 4 1 Adjust wait/transfer times in schedules. 2 Adjust transit schedules to reflect hours of operation extension and frequency changes. 3 Inform the community about schedule changes. 4 Establish a policy for introduction of "new routes" or demonstration projects. 5 Conduct transit studies to determine feasibility of proposed recommendations 6 Implement new vehicle replacement/procurement strategy focusing on larger vehicles.

LEGEND Variable (i.e., entire week may not be necessary) Full-week recommended Ongoing task Begin-by date Complete-by date

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 79

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 80

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Alternative B Implementation Implementation of Alternative B requires operational modifications to the City’s current service delivery approach. These include:  Finalize operating schedule and hours of operation;  Inform the community about the new routes and service, service reductions, how it will affect them, and positioning transit as an attractive mobility alternative;  Market new service expansion to areas not currently served by transit;  Coordinate DAR services with Placer County DAR services;  Implement new vehicle replacement/procurement strategy focusing on larger vehicles;  Train drivers on new route alignments and schedules; and  Install new bus stop signage along proposed routes as well as customer amenities (info- posts, benches, shelters) at designated locations.

Exhibit 3.3.2 illustrates a projected timeline for implementation of the recommendations proposed in Alternative B. Moore & Associates recommends the City continue marketing efforts beyond the term of this plan in order to monitor pilot programs and proposed service expansions. We recommend the City implement the proposed recommendations across a seven-year period. The table below represents implementation during the first year. Ongoing tasks include schedule revisions and advertising new routes depending on the planning year. As presented in Section 3.2 – Capital and Financial Plan, the phased approach or schedule is tentative and will require the implementation of tasks listed below when implementing the new routes/expansions.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 81 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 82 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit 3.3.2 Preferred Implementation Schedule B FY 2011/12 TASKS FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 QUARTER 1 QUARTER 2 QUARTER 3 QUARTER 4 1 Finalize operating schedule and hours of operation. 2 Finalize turn-by-turn directions. 3 Train drivers and dispatchers on new service delivery plan. 4 Revise current schedules to reflect "pilot programs" and service reductions. 5 Advertise new routes and schedule revisions. 6 Implement new vehicle replacement/procurement strategy. 7 Install bus stops/benches/shelters along proposed routes. 8 Replace older bus stop signs and amenities in need of improvement.

LEGEND Variable (i.e., entire week may not be necessary) Full-week recommended Ongoing task Begin-by date Complete-by date

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 83 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 84 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

A. EXISTING A CONDITIONS

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 85 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 86 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

APPENDIX A – EXISTING CONDITIONS

SECTION A.1 – DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS

Incorporated in 1909, the city of Roseville is located at the base of the Sierra Nevada foothills along the edge of the Sacramento Valley in Placer County, California. Situated 16 miles north of Sacramento and 102 miles northeast of San Francisco the City covers nearly 31 square miles. Roseville is the most populous city in Placer County, home to more than 112,000 (California Department of Finance 2009).

Because of its proximity to Sacramento, Roseville functions as a “bedroom” community, characterized by a significant portion of residents commuting between Roseville and neighboring cities such as Sacramento for employment.

Key sectors include technology, healthcare, agriculture, as well as financial services. Top employers include Hewlett-Packard, NEC Technologies, Kaiser Permanente, Sutter Roseville Medical Center, and the Union Pacific Railroad. Retail is also a critical sector with large retail centers such as the Westfield Galleria and the Fountains being key contributors to the City’s tax base and employment.

Exhibit A.1.1 City of Roseville and Transit Route Map

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 87 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Governance The City of Roseville has a council-manager form of government. City Council elections occur on even-numbered years in the month of November. Two or three council members are alternately elected to serve four-year terms. The position of Mayor Pro Tempore is awarded to the council member garnering the highest number of votes during the prior election. The first two years of this member’s term is spent as Mayor Pro Tempore, and the last two years (of the four-year term) as Mayor.

Mobility Inventory Exhibit A.1.2 provides a summary of fixed-route, demand-response, commuter bus services, private bus lines, and rail lines operating throughout Roseville.

Exhibit A.1.2 Mobility Inventory Public Transit Commuter Services Public Transportation Services Fixed-Route Demand response Commuter Bus Bus Rail Roseville Transit Roseville Dial-A-Ride Roseville Commuter Service Greyhound Bus Lines Amtrak Capital Corridor Placer County Transit WPCTSA "Health Express" Sacramento Regional Transit Source: Roseville Transit 2010

Major Transportation Corridors Roseville has two major transportation corridors (Interstate 80 and State Route 65) which travel through the city. Interstate 80 runs on an east-west axis across the county, bisecting Roseville at its eastern end. State Route 65 runs on a north-south alignment terminating near the city’s northwestern border. Highway 65 links between Roseville and the communities of Lincoln and Olivehurst.

Social Profile Based on the 2009 American Community Survey, nearly 93 percent of the city’s population hold a high school diploma or higher, with 34.5 percent possessing a Bachelor’s degree or higher. These figures are higher than the county, state, and national percentages. With a little over one percent difference, the city is slightly higher than the county in high school and Bachelor’s degree attainment. Overall, the Roseville is 12.2 percent higher than the state average for high school diploma attainment (80.5 percent) while the city has less than half the state’s percentage of over- 25-year-olds without a hhigh sschool diploma.

Note: All American Community Survey estimates include a 10-percent margin of error. The margin of error is the maximum difference between the estimate and the upper and lower confidence bounds. The Census Bureau defines the margin of error as providing a 90-percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate (the lower and upper confidences bounds) reflect the true value.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 88 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.1.3 Summary of Roseville Demographic Characteristics Education

Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage Over 25 High School Bachelor's Median Age Male Female without High Diploma or Degree of School Diploma Higher Higher

City of Roseville 49.5% 50.5% 36.5 7.3% 92.7% 34.5% Placer County 49.4% 50.6% 36.5 7.5% 92.5% 33.5% California 50.0% 50.0% 34.6 19.5% 80.5% 29.7% Nationally 49.3% 50.7% 36.7 15.5% 84.6% 27.5% Source: American Community Survey 2009

Economic Profile Nearly six percent of the labor force was unemployed as of late 2010, a figure slightly higher than the county (5.6 percent) yet lower than state (7.9 percent) and nation (7.2 percent). According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, California’s unemployment rate substantially increased to 12.4 percent across the last calendar year (data current as of November 2010). Given the dramatic increase in unemployment experienced nationwide, Roseville’s unemployment rate may be actually higher than presented in the Exhibit A.1.4.

With unemployment higher than in prior years, there may be less demand to use alternative transportation services for home to work travel. As noted in the onboard survey and community workshops, Roseville Transit’s historic customer base is comprised largely of full-time students, full- time employees, and unemployed individuals.

As shown in Exhibit A.1.4, 79 percent of work-age adults commute to/from work using a single- occupant vehicle, higher than county, state, and national figures. Similar to county statistics, 1.4 percent of city residents utilized public transit while 1.4 percent walked. This low rate indicates a preference among residents for use of single-occupant vehicles over all other modes for home-to- work commutes. Nationally, the number is fixed at five percent, with state-wide percent slightly higher (5.2 percent) than the nation.

The city’s median household income ($74,128) was higher than the county ($73,550), state ($60,392), and national ($51,425) median household income for 2009. Similarly, the city’s median family income surpassed the county’s figure by more than $1,000 with Roseville households earning approximately 22 percent more than the state median income.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 89 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.1.4 Summary of Roseville Economic Characteristics Commute2 Income2 Median Social Public Median Percentage Public Per Capita Drive Alone Walked Household Security Assistance Family Unemployed1 Transit Income Income Income Income Income City of Roseville 5.7% 79.0% 1.4% 1.4% $74,128.00 $16,035.00 $5,349.00 $88,437.00 $33,687.00 Placer County 5.6% 78.0% 1.1% 1.5% $73,550.00 $16,314.00 $5,029.00 $87,005.00 $35,617.00 California 7.9% 73.0% 5.1% 2.8% $60,392.00 $14,772.00 $5,455.00 $68,909.00 $29,020.00 Nationally 7.2% 75.9% 5.0% 2.9% $51,425.00 $14,966.00 $3,539.00 $62,363.00 $27,041.00 Source: American Community Survey 2009

Housing Profile Given the volatility of the current economic climate (i.e., high unemployment rate, increasing number of foreclosures, etc.), data compiled from Census 2000 may not fully reflect the current housing characteristics of the county, state, or nation.

The median value of single-family dwellings in Roseville is $420,500. This is lower than the state’s ($479,200) and the county ($457,100) reported median values in 2009. Nationally, the median value for a home is $192,400, less than half the median value of homes in Roseville.

The average single-family residence in Roseville has 5.7 rooms. Nearly 46 percent of homeowners spend more than 30 percent of their annual income on mortgage. Based on the previous data (Exhibit A.1.4), median household income is $74,128, indicating more than $22,000 of an owners median income is spent on a mortgage.

The median rent in Roseville is $1,163, higher than the county, state, and national medians. Nearly 50 percent of Roseville renters spend more than 30 percent of their income on rent, similar to both the county (52 percent) and national (49.6 percent) averages.

Exhibit A.1.5 Summary of Roseville Housing Characteristics Owner Occupied Renter-Occupied

Median Percentage of owners Percentage of renters Rooms per Median Value spending at least 30% of Median Rent spending more than 30% Structure income on mortgage on income on rent

City of Roseville 5.7 $420,500.00 45.7% $1,163.00 51.6% Placer County 5.8 $457,100.00 48.4% $1,155.00 52.8% California 5.1 $479,200.00 48.4% $1,155.00 52.8% Nationally 5.0 $192,400.00 51.6% $1,116.00 54.5% Source: American Community Survey 2009

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 90 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Service Area Characteristics Roseville Transit features 10 fixed-route lines, a commuter bus service, and a Dial-A-Ride service. The Roseville Transit service area spans the city of Roseville, with the majority of service provided to communities alongside arterial roads, Interstate 80, and Highway 65. The service area includes downtown Roseville as well as the communities of Creekside, Foothills Junction, Harding, Industrial East, Industrial West, Kaseberg-Kingswood, Meadow Oaks, Maidu, Olympus Pointe, Sierra Gardens, Stanford, and Woodcreek.

The service area reflects primarily residential neighborhoods, with alignments also designed to serve large employers such as Kaiser Permanente and educational institutions such as Sierra College and Woodcreek High School. Our field review indicates there is opportunity for expansion into northwestern Roseville.

Community Planning Revised in 2010, the Circulation Element of the City of Roseville’s General Plan guides local planning efforts. The Circulation Element (Part 3 of the General Plan) offers policies to implement intermediate objectives intended to accomplish major goals. The City takes the following stance on transportation issues related to future growth within the city:

It is the underlying goal of the entire Circulation Element that the City’s circulation system promote: 1) the safe, efficient, and reliable movement of people and goods; 2) shift from the single occupant automobile to other modes of transportation; and 3) provide an adequate level of transportation service for all persons traveling in and through Roseville.

The following goal relates to Roseville Transit:

Promote a safe and efficient mass transit system, utilizing both rail and bus modes, to reduce congestion, reduce auto emissions, including emissions that contribute to climate change, improve the environment, and provide viable nonautomotive means of transportation in and through Roseville.

Population In 2009, the city’s population reached 112,343, an increase of 40.6 percent since 2000. Given the average annual percent increase, we forecast a growth of nearly 49.6 percent across the next 11 years to 168,065. Exhibit A.1.6 Population Growth Total Population Growth Year 2000 2009 2020 Population 79,921 112,343 168,065 % change - 40.6% 49.6% net change - 32,422 55,722 Source: Census 2000, American Community Survey 2009

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 91 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Given the federal census is conducted every ten years, data illustrating concentrations of target populations for the following census block maps reflects data from the Census 2000. Based on Census 2000, the highest concentrations of residents live north of Junction Blvd, west of Washington Street, and east of Fiddyment Road in the neighborhoods of Blue Oaks, Foothill Junction, Kaseberg- Kingswood, Pleasant Grove, and Woodcreek Oaks. The second highest concentration of residents is located east of Washington Street near the Rocklin/Roseville border in the neighborhoods of Stanford along Highway 65.

Neighborhood Association Boundaries Formed in 1998 as an outgrowth of community policing, the Neighborhood Services program provides additional service to the citizens of Roseville. The Roseville Coalition of Neighborhood Associations (RCONA) boundaries are shown on each of the demographic analysis maps along with current transit routes in order to help identify and quantify demand for transit service.

Exhibit A.1.7 Neighborhood Association Boundaries NAME # NAME # BLUE OAKS 36 KASEBERG-KINGSWOOD 23 CHERRY GLEN 15 LEAD HILL 10 CIRBY RANCH 6 LOS CERRITOS 22 CIRBY SIDE 7 MAIDU 3 CREEKSIDE 41 MEADOW OAKS 8 CRESTHAVEN 12 OLYMPUS POINTE 11 DIAMOND OAKS 30 PLEASANT GROVE 28 EAST ROSEVILLE PARKWAY 34 QUAIL GLEN 27 ENWOOD 18 ROSEVILLE HEIGHTS 20 FOLSOM ROAD 17 SIERRA GARDENS 9 FOOTHILLS JUNCTION 24 SIERRA VISTA 19 GALLERIA 40 SOUTH CIRBY 4 HARDING 32 STANFORD 37 HIGHLAND RESERVE 31 STANFORD CROSSING 39 HILLCREST 16 SUN CITY 26 HILLTOP CIRCLE 33 THEILES MANOR 14 INDUSTRIAL AREA EAST 38 VINEYARD 21 INDUSTRIAL AREA WEST 29 WOODCREEK OAKS 25 JOHNSON RANCH 1 WESTPARK-FIDDYMENT FARMS 42 JUNCTION WEST 35

Residents living within the more populated areas are served by Roseville Transit Lines R, S, M, D, and I. Communities located further north of these lines – Blue Oaks, Quail Glen, and Sun City, – are not currently within reasonable walking distance of Roseville Transit service.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 92 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.1.8 Population by Census Block

Source: Census 2010 / *Refer to Exhibit A.1.7 for listing of Neighborhoods

Ride-Dependent Population The “ride-dependent” population is defined as individuals more likely to lack the ability to transport themselves, and who would be reliant upon others (i.e., public transit) for their personal mobility. These demographic groups typically include youth (ages 6 -17), seniors, persons with disabilities, and low-income individuals.

Youth Population In 2000, Roseville’s youth demographic translated to 19.0 percent of the total population (15,192). Across the past decade, the population has grown to more than 20,000, with the youth share decreasing in terms of relative share. Youth population increased by 5,647 between 2000 and 2009, comprising 18.0 percent of the total population in 2009. Assuming population trends remain consistent, the youth population is projected to reach 31,488 by 2020.

As noted below, youth population is projected to increase approximately 13.9 percent by 2020, prompting a greater need to market to this segment. In reviewing the City’s current transit route network, we discovered the absence of a direct service to Sierra College - one of the colleges in the area. Therefore we recommend the City investigate establishing direct route linking the College with those neighborhoods with large clusters of secondary school-aged

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 93 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

youth. As noted in the onboard survey results, the largest group of respondents identified themselves as full-time students. We believe this supports the value of introducing the recommended service.

Exhibit A.1.9 Youth Population Growth Youth Population Growth Year 2000 2009 2020 Population 15,192 20,839 31,488 % change - 37.2% 51.1% net change - 5,647 10,649 Percent Share 19.0% 18.0% 16.4% Source: Census 2000, American Community Survey 2009

Youth population trends mimicked the overall population in 2010. The greatest concentration of youth resides within the highest populated area north of Junction Blvd, east of Washington Street, west of Fiddyment Road, and north of Baseline Road. Unlike total population patterns presented in Exhibit A.1.8, there are lower concentrations of youth in the Del Webb community given it is predominantly an “adult (55+) living” community. High concentrations of youth reside north of Pleasant Grove, with the census block extending northward to the Industrial West and east side of the city. The highest concentration resides adjacent to Sierra College and East Roseville Parkway as well as the northwestern portion of Roseville. Although public transit is not a substitute for traditional “yellow bus” school service, we believe theirs is value in extending traditional transit service further north into these neighborhoods.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 94 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.1.10 Youth Population by Census Block

Source: Census 2010 *Refer to Exhibit A.1.7 for listing of Neighborhoods

Senior Population The term “senior” refers to individuals 65 years of age or older. Based on federal census data, the senior population grew nearly 30 percent between 2000 and 2009, translating to 13 percent of total population in 2009. Assuming future trends remain consistent (and annual percent increases are fixed at 3.02 percent across the next nine years), we forecast the senior population would increase to 19,840 in 2020. Exhibit A.1.11 Senior Population Growth Senior Population Growth Year 2000 2009 2020 Population 11,456 14,567 19,840 % change - 27.2% 36.2% net change - 3,111 5,273 Percent Share 14.3% 12.6% 10.3% Source: Census 2000, American Community Survey 2009

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 95 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Traditionally, seniors tend to increase their use of alternative transportation modes as they age. Within Roseville Transit’s “service sphere “are the Del Webb and Sun City communities, both which are marketed as an “active adult community.”

Further, Census data reveals concentrations of 501 to 1000 seniors reside in block groups parallel to Baseline Road near Maidu and Sierra Gardens. The single-greatest concentration can be found in Sun City near the Sun City Roseville gold course and along Del Webb Boulevard.

Given the age (55) threshold as well as prevailing housing mix, many Del Webb and Sun City residents either continue to work or lead active (i.e., mobility independent) lifestyles. Historically this has translated to modes Roseville Transit ridership. Nonetheless, we encourage the City to periodically meet with Del Webb and Sun City property management to assess possible growth in demand for public transit services (as the mobility needs of their respective residents change).

Exhibit A.1.12 Senior Population by Census Block

Source: Census 2010 / *Refer to Exhibit A.1.7 for listing of Neighborhoods

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 96 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Persons with Disabilities Given the absence of data available through the 2009 American Community Survey and federal census for persons with disabilities, we utilized 2007 American Community Survey data to develop a forecast of population growth in 2009. Considering this data as a baseline for annual percent increases across the last decade, we estimate 13.4 percent of the total population in 2009 had some form of mobility-limiting personal disability. This translates to a 21 percent increase across the past decade. Assuming this growth trend remains consistent we forecast the City’s disabled population could reach 17,960 by 2020.

Exhibit A.1.13 Persons with Disabilities Population Growth Persons with Disabilities Population Growth Year 2000 2009 2020 Population 11,803 14,286 17,960 % change - 21.0% 25.7% net change - 2,483 3,674 Percent Share 14.8% 13.4% 10.7% Source: Federal Census (2000, 2007)

Similar to senior population, the highest concentration of persons with disabilities resides in Sun City housing parallel to Baseline Road extending eastward to Washington Boulevard and northward to Pleasant Grove Boulevard. Significant clusters of persons with disabilities also reside east of Interstate 80 near the Theiles Manor neighborhood. A concentration of persons with disabilities can also be found in the more populated areas of Pleasant Grove and Kaseberg- Kingswood, with more than 3,501 living in those block groups covering the neighborhoods of Foothill Junction and Woodcreek Oaks. Four Roseville Transit alignments (D, I, M, and R) travel within these neighborhoods, extending west to Woodcreek High School and serving the eastern portion of Pleasant Grove and Blue Oaks.

In addition to the traditional bus service (i.e., fixed-route), Roseville Transit’s Dial-A-Ride service also covers the neighborhoods indicated in the above paragraph.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 97 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.1.14 Persons with Disabilities by Census Block

Source: Census 2000 / *Refer to Exhibit A.1.7 for listing of Neighborhoods

Low-Income Population “Low-income” population is defined as individuals earning at or below the national poverty level threshold. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the average poverty threshold as of 2010 for an individual was $11,136, with $22,314 for a family of four. For purposes of this analysis we will use 2009 poverty thresholds to correlate with the 2009 data extrapolated from the American Community Survey. Based on 2009 poverty thresholds, an individual earning at or below $10,956 or a family unit of four earning a collective income of $21,954 is considered low- income.

The number of low-income individuals increased 82.3 percent between 2000 and 2009. The increase is far greater than note in prior SRTP’s, and probably tied to recent downturns in regional and national economies. Whether this increase is an anomaly or remains throughout the decade ahead is unknown. However, changes in one’s financial position translates to increased reliance upon alternative transportation options (i.e., public transit).

For purposes of this exercise we provide two projection scenarios – projection based on annual percent increase noted between 1990 and 2000 and a projection based on annual percent

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 98 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

increase experienced between 2000 and 2009. Assuming a rebound in the regional economy across the next decade, we project the low-income population to increase 33.6 percent by 2020. However, if the current trends remain consistent, low-income projections would increase by 200 percent to 21,459 in 2020. Exhibit A.1.15 Low-Income Population Growth Low-Income Population Growth Year 1990 2000 2009 2020 Population 3,000 3,916 7,139 9,537 % change - 30.5% 82.3% 33.6% net change - 916 3,223 2,398 Percent Share - 4.9% 6.4% 5.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2000, 2009)

Based on the American Community Survey (2005-2009 estimates), high concentrations of low- income residents live in the communities of Theiles Manor and Cherry Glen (west of Interstate 80) as well as Johnson Ranch and Sierra Gardens. In more populous areas such as northern Roseville the incidence of low-income individuals is modest.

Exhibit A.1.16 Low-Income Population by Census Tract

Source: ACS 2009 / *Refer to Exhibit A.1.7 for listing of Neighborhoods

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 99 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Incidence of Vehicle Ownership In 2000, more than 1,700 Roseville households lacked access to a personal vehicle. Across the following nine years the number declined 4.9 percent translating to 1.5 percent of the total population. Assuming such trends remain consistent over the next ten years, the number of households without a personal vehicle would fall below 1,600 in 2020. Given the recent downturn in the economy experienced across the last four years (which caused the car industry to reduce car prices coupled with the promotion of government incentives or discounts for purchasing a new cars), there is reason to believe the percent change over the last few years reflects these purchases.

While lower vehicle purchase cost is an important evaluation factor, it is but one part of the equation. The volatility of fuel prices is often a larger determinant of vehicle purchases and use, particularly for low-income individuals. In some instances, the initial purchase cost of a vehicle becomes overshadowed by the cost of operating and maintaining the vehicle.

Exhibit A.1.17 Zero Vehicle Households Zero Vehicle Households Population Growth Year 2000 2009 2020 Population 1,756 1,670 1,570 % change - -4.9% -6.0% net change - -86 -100 Percent Share 2.2% 1.5% 0.9% Source: Census Bureau (2000, 2009)

As shown in Exhibit A.1.18, the highest concentrations of households lacking access to a personal vehicle (351 or more) are located in the communities of Maidu and Enwood, parallel to Interstate 80. Between 101 and 350 households are located in the same census blocks as persons with disabilities and seniors, further indicating a need to increase transportation alternatives to communities located along Cirby Way as well as within the Del Webb/Sun City area. The single-greatest concentration of households lacking access to a personal vehicle is located in the neighborhoods of Sierra Gardens and Folsom Road.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 100 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.1.18 Zero Vehicle Households by Census Tract

Source: ACS 2009 / *Refer to Exhibit A.1.7 for listing of Neighborhoods

Transit Need Index To illustrate the relationship between transit demand and supply, Moore & Associates used GIS to quantify aggregate demand (ride-dependent population as well as total residents) within each Census Tract within the city of Roseville. Each of the 68 census tracts fully or partially located within Roseville were ranked on a scale of one to five depending upon their relative share of ride-dependent population segment (i.e., a census tract was rated “5” if it was in the top 20 percent of census tracts in terms of percentage share of youth, while the same census tract could be rated a “1” if it was in the bottom fifth of the group with respect to seniors). After analyzing all 68 census tracts using these criteria, the ratings were applied to facilitate comparison. The highest possible score was 30 (i.e., six categories rated one through five).

The demand information was then contrasted with transit supply, represented by each Roseville Transit fixed route alignment. The results reveal that, while Roseville Transit has addressed

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 101 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

much of the demand within the service area, there remain areas where demand exceeds supply. These areas were to the northwest of Roseville , partially,served by Routes C, D, and I.

Exhibit A.1.19 Transit Need Index Map

Trip Generators As part of the demand analysis, we identified the most frequented/popular trip generators (i.e., shopping centers, social services, governmental/educational facilities, etc.) within the City to assist with identifying travel patterns and common destinations in relation to transit routes. In doing so, we were able to acquire quantifiable data to support the identification of potential service gaps and associated transit demand within Roseville.

Trip generators are those land uses which attract a large incidence of daily trips (auto, bus, bike, walking) and as such are popular origins and destinations. Ensuring public transit directly serves these locations will not only enhance the overall community mobility but also potentially increase transit’s share of the total trips made within Roseville.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 102 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Trip generator locations were identified through on-site observations, community survey findings, and City-provided data. Schools, community facilities (parks and recreation centers), shopping centers, and key employers were among the trip generators identified.

We also recommend the City continue utilizing the CIP Traffic Model to identify trip generators and ensure such locations are part of future transit service development discussions.

Exhibit A.1.20 lists the top ten trip generators based on the 2010 Onboard Survey and Community Survey. In the Onboard Survey, respondents were asked to specify boarding and alighting locations (i.e., landmarks, crossroads, etc.). The 2010 Ride Checks validated this data.

Exhibit A.1.20 Top Ten Trip Generators Top Ten Trip Generators Name Address 1 Galleria Mall 1151 Galleria Blvd 2 Civic Center 311 Vernon Street 3 Sierra Gardens Sierra Gardens Dr. 4 Louis Lane and Orlando Ave Louis Lane and Orlando Ave 5 Cirby Way Cirby Way 6 Douglas Blvd and Sunrise Ave Douglas Blvd and Sunrise Ave 7 Riverside Street Riverside St. 8 Foothills Rd. Foothill Blvd 9 Wood Creek Oaks Wood Creek Oaks 10 Junction Road Transfer Point Junction Road Transfer Point Source: 2010 Onboard Survey

As illustrated in Exhibit A.1.21, the Roseville Transit network includes several of the top trip generators throughout the city. Represented by a green dot, a large number of commuity trip generators consist of parks dispersed throughout the city. For the most part, these community and recreational facilities are served by Roseville Transit.

Further, with the exception of the Del Webb/Sun City communities located in eastern Roseville, Roseville Transit services a significant protion of the city’s residential development.

Regional trip generators, such as Sierra College, Thunder Valley Casino, and downtown Sacramento, can be accessed through connections with Placer County Transit. As illustrated in Exhibit A.1.21, the majority of Roseville Transit bus lines connect with PCT Lincoln/Sierra and Auburn to Light Rail routes at the Roseville Galleria and Louis/Orlando transfer points.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 103 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.1.21 Trip Generators

Demographic Analysis Key Findings  Persons living within the most populated areas are served by Roseville Transit Lines R, S, M, D, and I; while communities located north of these lines – Sun City, Quail Glen, and Blue Oaks – are beyond reasonable walking distance of Roseville Transit alignments (Exhibit A.1.8).  The greatest concentration of youth resides within the highest-populated area north of Junction Blvd, east of Washington Street, west of Fiddyment Road, and north of Baseline Road (Exhibit A.1.10).  The highest concentration of seniors resides in Sun City near the Sun City Roseville Golf Course and alongside Del Webb Blvd, marketed as an “active adult community (55+)” (Exhibit A.1.12)  Similar to senior population, the highest concentration of persons with disabilities resides in Sun City developments parallel to Baseline Road extending eastward to Washington Boulevard and northward to Pleasant Grove Boulevard (Exhibit A.1.14)  The City’s low-income population increased 82.3 percent between 2000 and 2009, likely tied to the recent economic downturn (A.1.15).  The highest concentrations of households lacking access to a personal vehicle (351 or more) are located in the communities of Maidu and Enwood, parallel to Interstate 80 (A.1.18).

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 104 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

SECTION A.2 – SERVICE EVALUATION

Roseville Transit provides more than 400,000 unlinked trips per year, a significant accomplishment given the modest one percent citing transit as a means of home-to-work travel (Section A.1 – Demographic Analysis). Roseville Transit has been successful in capturing a significant share of total trips made within the city proper in light of such factors as the linear nature of the road network, proliferation of vehicle ownership, prevailing travel patterns, and availability of low to no-cost parking.

Ridership has decreased at a modest rate across the past five fiscal years. Ridership declined more than three percent (across the period) due largely to the weak economy. Given the external pressures like high unemployment and expensive fuel costs, two questions arise with regard to Roseville Transit:

 Is Roseville’s public transit program adequately serving the mobility needs of residents and persons employed within the city?  What service changes are needed to address the deficiencies identified through our evaluation?

Objectives of Evaluation The ultimate goal of the service evaluation is the advancement of practical recommendations for quantifiably enhancing both the productivity and effectiveness of the City of Roseville’s transit program. Our analysis includes operational, maintenance, and administrative functions.

Evaluation Approach During the course of conducting this Short Range Transit Plan, our project team participated in a series of meetings to discuss project status, methodologies and approach, and to solicit input from the PCTPA as well as City of Roseville staff regarding each task contained within the scope of work. Below is a summary of said meetings.

 Project initiation meeting was held on July 15, 2010 at PCTPA offices.  A teleconference was held with the City of Roseville staff regarding survey collateral.  A teleconference with PCTPA was held on August 11, 2010 along with Will Garner(PCT), David Melko (PCTPA), and Mike Wixon and Helen Dyda (City of Roseville).  A teleconference was held with Heather Menninger and Roy Glauthier (AMMA Transit) and the City’s Alternative Transportation Manager and Marketing Coordinator on August 20, 2010.  A teleconference was held on September 17, 2010 to discuss PCTPA’s Unmet Transit Needs Workshops/SRTP meetings including the development and design of the meeting flyer, newspaper advertisement, and website content, as well as any additional information regarding the meeting locations and time.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 105 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

 A teleconference was held on October 13, 2010 to discuss the goals of the PCTPA’s Unmet Transit Needs Workshops/SRTP meetings, SACOG “transit lifeline” project, and coordination of meetings as an avenue for soliciting community input for SACOG’s “transit lifeline” project.  Two follow-up teleconferences were held on October 26, 2010 to discuss PCTPA workshops.  Two meetings were held on December 16, 2010 between PCTPA, City of Auburn, Placer County, City of Roseville, and the project team. The meetings discussed each operators proposed recommendations and any additional data to include within the reports.  A meeting was held February 10, 2011 between the City of Roseville, PCTPA, and Moore & Associates to discuss the Roseville administrative draft, potential alternatives, and various city-related items.  A meeting was held with the City of Roseville on May 16, 2011 to discuss and review the Roseville draft report.  The Roseville draft report was presented to the PCTPA board on June 29, 2011.  A work session was held on July 8, 2011 to discuss the Roseville SRTP report, focusing on the service plan and financials.

Following data collection and analysis, draft versions of each SRTP chapter were presented for City review.

Program Overview The City of Roseville’s fixed-route service was initiated in 1970 under the auspices of Mountain Transportation Cooperative (MTC). Currently operated by MV Transportation, Roseville Transit provides ten fixed-route alignments, a commuter bus service, and a general public/ADA Dial-A-Ride program. Connections are provided with Placer County Transit and Sacramento Regional Transit.

Local Transit (Fixed-Route Alignments) Local Route A operates on a clockwise loop, running on a north-south axis along Interstate 80. The service operates Monday through Friday, 6:03 a.m. to 6:33 p.m., and Saturday, 8:03 a.m. to 5:03 p.m.

Trips originate and terminate at the Louis/Orlando transfer point with the exception of the last weekday trip, which terminates at the Roseville Galleria transfer point. The weekday service runs every 30 minutes, while the Saturday service runs every 60 minutes. Local Route A provides connections with Placer County Transit (at the Galleria Mall and Louis/Orlando transfer points) and Sacramento Regional Transit (at Louis/Orlando). Connections with Roseville’s Commuter Bus service are provided at the Galleria, Civic Center, Louis/Orlando, and Sierra Gardens transfer points.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 106 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Local Route B operates on the same alignment as Local Route A, running on a counterclockwise loop adjacent to Interstate 80. The service operates Monday through Friday, 6:13 a.m. to 6:13 p.m.; and Saturday, 8:43 a.m. to 4:43 p.m.

All trips originate and terminate at the Roseville Civic Center. Weekday services run every 30 minutes, while Saturday services run every 60 minutes. Local Route B provides connections with Placer County Transit (at the Galleria Mall and Louis/Orlando transfer points) and Sacramento Regional Transit (at Louis/Orlando). Connections with the City’s Commuter Bus service are provided at the Galleria, Civic Center, Louis/Orlando, and Sierra Gardens transfer points.

Local Route C runs clockwise, serving Roseville west of Interstate 80. Service operates Monday through Friday, 6:45 a.m. to 5:20 p.m., and Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:05 p.m. running 35-minute trips every 75 minutes.

All trips originate at the Sierra Gardens transfer point and terminate at Douglas/Rocky Ridge. The Local Route C service provides connections with the City’s Commuter Bus service at the Sierra Gardens transfer point.

Local Route D runs clockwise on an east-west loop with trips originating and terminating at the Roseville Civic Center, with the exception of the first weekday and Saturday trips, which originate at Foothills/Junction. The service operates Monday through Friday, from 6:07 a.m. to 6:24 p.m., and Saturday, 8:07 a.m. to 4:24 p.m.

This service operates on 60-minute frequencies, except for the first trip of both weekday and Saturday service. Trip durations are typically 30-minutes, with additional time built in the schedule for layovers. Local Route D provides connections to the City’s Commuter Bus service at the Civic Center transfer point. Route D interlines with Routes I and L.

Local Route G operates on an east-west clockwise loop with trips originating at Douglas/Rocky Ridge and terminating at Sierra Gardens with the exception of the first weekday and Saturday trips, which originate at Sierra College Blvd/Douglas. Local Route G services also interline with Local Route C at Douglas/Rocky Ridge and the Sierra Gardens transfer point. Service operates Monday through Friday, 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and Saturday, 7:45 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.

The service runs every 75 minutes, except for the first trip of each service day (weekday and Saturday), which is a 15-minute trip bypassing the first nine scheduled stops. Local Route G provides connections with the City’s Commuter Bus services at the Sierra Gardens transfer point.

Local Route I provides intra-city service within Roseville, operating on an east-west “figure eight” pattern with trips originating and terminating at the Roseville Civic Center; with the exception of the last trip of each service day, which terminates at the Junction transfer point.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 107 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Service operates Monday through Friday, from 6:24 a.m. to 6:36 p.m., and Saturday, 8:24 a.m. to 4:36 p.m. Local Route I’s services interline with Local Route D at the Roseville Civic Center.

Trips operate on 30-minute runs every 60 minutes, with the exception for the last trip of each service day (weekday and Saturday), which is a 12-minute trip, bypassing the last eight scheduled stops. Local Route I provides connections with the City’s Commuter Bus service at the Roseville Civic Center.

Local Route L operates on an east-west axis with trips originating and terminating at the Roseville Civic Center, with the exception of the last Saturday trip, which terminates at Sierra Gardens. Service operates Monday through Friday, 6:25 a.m. to 6:15 p.m., and Saturday, from 8:25 a.m. to 5:02 p.m.

Trips operate on 60 minute headways with a trip duration of 50 minutes, except for the last Saturday trip, which operates a 37-minute trip, bypassing the last eight scheduled stops. Local Route L provides connections with the City’s Commuter Bus service at the Civic Center and Sierra Gardens transfer points.

Local Route M operates on a southwest-northeast alignment with trips originating and terminating at the Galleria transfer point, with the exception of the last Saturday trip, which terminates at the Junction transfer point. Service operates Monday through Friday, 6:35 a.m. to 6:25 p.m., and Saturday, from 8:35 a.m. to 5:14 p.m.

Trip durations are 50 minutes and run on 60-minute headways, except for the last Saturday trip, which bypasses the last nine scheduled stops reducing the trip time to 39 minutes. Local Route M provides connections with Placer County Transit and the City’s Commuter Bus services at the Galleria transfer point.

Local Route R operates a limited-stop service running on a north-south axis along Foothills Blvd. with trips originating and terminating at the Louis/Orlando transfer point. The service operates Monday through Friday, from 7:30 a.m. to 8:57 a.m., and from 3:53 p.m. to 5:20 p.m. Weekday service features two full runs (AM and PM).

The four trips operate on 42-minute runs every 45 minutes, with a gap in service between 8:57 a.m. and 3:53 p.m. Local Route R provides connections with Placer County Transit, Sacramento Regional Transit and the City’s Commuter Bus service at the Louis/Orlando transfer point.

Local Route S operates on a north-south clockwise loop between the Roseville Pkwy before West Drive stop (Galleria transfer point) and the Santucci Justice Center. Service operates Monday through Friday, from 7:35 a.m. to 5:25 p.m.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 108 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Local Route S provides connections to Placer County Transit and the City’s Commuter Bus service at stop at Roseville Parkway before West Drive stop (near the Galleria transfer point).

Exhibit A.2.1 Roseville Local Transit Service Span Service Day Weekday Peak Hour Route* Monday - Friday Saturday Headway Route A 6:03 a.m. - 6:33 p.m. 8:03 a.m. - 5:03 p.m. 30 minutes Route B 6:13 a.m. - 6:25 p.m. 8:43 a.m. - 4:43 p.m. 30 minutes Route C 6:45 a.m. - 5:20 p.m. 8:00 a.m. - 4:05 p.m. 75 minutes

Route D 6:07 a.m. - 6:24 p.m. 8:07 a.m. - 4:24 p.m. 60 minutes

Route G 6:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. 7:45 a.m. - 4:45 p.m. 75 minutes Route I 6:24 a.m. - 6:36 p.m. 8:24 a.m. - 4:36 p.m. 60 minutes Route L 6:25 a.m. - 6:15 p.m. 8:25 a.m. - *5:02 p.m. 60 minutes Route M 6:35 a.m. - 6:25 p.m. 8:35 a.m. - *5:14 p.m. 60 minutes Route R* 7:30 a.m. - 5:20 p.m. 45 minutes Route S 7:35 a.m. - 5:25 p.m. 60 minutes *Runs only four trips per day (two morning and two evening) Source: City of Roseville

Commuter Bus Service The City of Roseville offers a weekday commuter bus service providing eight morning and afternoon/evening services along Interstate 80 between Roseville and downtown Sacramento as well as within the Highway 50 corridor to the Butterfield light rail station in Folsom.

Roseville Transit also offers reverse-commute service to persons living in Sacramento and working in Roseville (or additional locations in Placer County via connecting service).

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 109 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.2.2 Roseville Commuter Bus Service Span Service Day Weekday Peak-Hour AM Routes Monday through Friday Trip Lengths AM Route 1* 5:04 a.m. - 6:08 a.m. 64 minutes AM Route 2* 5:35 a.m. - 6:39 a.m. 64 minutes AM Route 3 6:00 a.m. - 7:44 a.m. 103 minutes AM Route 4 6:00 a.m. - 7:33 a.m. 93 minutes AM Route 5 6:40 a.m. - 7:51 a.m. 71 minutes AM Route 6* 6:50 a.m. - 7:31 a.m. 41 minutes AM Route 7 7:10 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. 110 minutes AM Route 8 7:18 a.m. - 9:04 a.m. 106 minutes AM Route 51* 5:30 a.m. - 6:15 a.m. 45 minutes Service Day Weekday Peak-Hour PM Routes Monday through Friday Trip Lengths PM Route 1* 3:25 p.m. - 4:29 p.m. 64 minutes PM Route 2* 3:50 p.m. - 4:57 p.m. 67 minutes PM Route 3* 3:55 p.m. - 4:43 p.m. 48 minutes PM Route 4* 4:05 p.m. - 5:33 p.m. 88 minutes PM Route 5 3:50 p.m. - 5:35 p.m. 105 minutes PM Route 6 4:15 p.m. - 6:18 p.m. 123 minutes PM Route 7 4:47 p.m. - 6:27 p.m. 100 minutes PM Route 8 5:27 p.m. - 7:01 p.m. 94 minutes PM Route 51* 4:15 p.m. - 5:10 p.m. 55 minutes *Indicates no reverse-commute. For AM Routes, no buses return to Roseville. For PM Routes, no buses leave Roseville. Source: City of Roseville

Dial-A-Ride The City also sponsors a shared-ride, curb-to-curb Dial-A-Ride (DAR) service open to the general public, operating within the Roseville city limits. All DAR buses are ADA (Americans with Disability Act) compliant and feature wheelchair lifts. The Dial-A-Ride service operates Monday through Friday, from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and Saturday and Sunday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Exhibit A.2.3 Dial-A-Ride Service Span Service Hours Dial-A-Ride Monday through Friday Saturday & Sunday Roseville City Limits 6 a.m. - 7 p.m. 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 110 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Holiday Hours The City’s Local Transit (fixed-route) does not operate on New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. In addition to these holidays, Route S does not operate on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Lincoln’s Birthday, President’s Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, and the day after Thanksgiving.

The City’s Commuter Bus Service does not operate on New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, President’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, and Thanksgiving Day. The Commuter Bus Service also operates on a limited schedule on the following holidays: Cesar Chavez Day, day after Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve, and New Year’s Eve.

The City’s Dial-A-Ride service does not operate on New Year’s Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day; and offers limited service (8 a.m. to 5 p.m.) on Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Labor Day.

Fare Structure Local Transit The City offers one-way fixed-route fares within several different rider categories (Exhibit A.2.4). Medicare cardholders are eligible to ride Roseville Transit for half the base fare (75 cents). Fares are payable with cash only and exact change is required, as drivers do not make change.

Exhibit A.2.4 Roseville Local Transit Fare Structure Senior/ Children General Disabled/ (Age 4 and Fare Type Public Medicare Student under) Single Fare $1.50 $0.75* $0.75* Free** Daily Pass $4.00 $2.00* $2.00* 20-Ride Ticket Book $30.00 $15.00* $15.00* Monthly Pass $58.00 $29.00* $29.00* Summer Youth Bus Pass $10.00 * With Roseville Transit Photo ID, Medicare Card, or Student ID. ** Age 4 and under -- Up to two per fare-paying adult.

Discounts on fares can be realized with the purchase of a 20-ride ticket book or monthly pass which are priced at $30.00 and $58.00, respectively. Senior, disabled, Medicare cardholders and students with valid identification can purchase these passes for half the general public price ($15.00 and $29.00, respectively).

On April 4, 2010, the City introduced a transfer policy to more effectively coordinate with other local public transit providers. The policy allows passengers to board Placer County Transit buses at the Louis/Orlando and Galleria transfer points using the following fare media: daily, semi-monthly (20-

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 111 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

ticket ride book), or monthly passes. Additionally, riders and non-riders may board Sacramento Regional Transit at the Louis/Orlando transfer point using the same fare media.

During the summer months (June 1 through August 31), children (between the ages of 5 and 18) can ride Placer County Transit, Roseville Transit, Lincoln Transit, and Auburn Transit for ten dollars by purchasing the Summer Youth Pass. This program is administered by the PCTPA using Caltrans grant funding.

Commuter Service The City’s Commuter Bus Service’s fare structure includes only two fare categories: Resident and Non-resident. The only discount fare category applicable to the Commuter Bus Service is “Resident”, which requires an identification card, certifying a rider’s residence within Roseville.

Reverse-commuters, which are passengers who board in Sacramento and commute to Roseville for work are also identified in the City’s Commuter Bus fare policy. A photo identification card is not required.

Exhibit A.2.5 Roseville Transit Commuter Service Fare Structure Resident* & Fare Type Reverse Non-resident Single Fare $3.25 $4.50 20-Ride Ticket Book $65.00 $90.00 Monthly Pass $110.00 $155.00 * with Roseville Resident Commuter ID Card

Dial-A-Ride Roseville’s dial-a-ride service includes three fare categories: general public, senior/disabled, and ADA-certified. Senior/disabled riders must be either 60 years or older with proper identification or have a “Disabled” photo identification card issued by the City. The ADA category is specific to the dial-a-ride service. Riders regarding an ADA fare category must present the driver one of the following forms of identification:

1. Roseville Transit ADA Discount Photo Identification card. 2. Roseville Transit ADA with attendant Photo Identification card.

New, renewing, or replacement ADA cards are issued free of charge. However, the City will only honor ADA cards from other transit operators for 21 days following first presentation/use.

“Same-day” service trips are described as trips that are requested by patrons with less than 24 hour notice from the desired pick-up time/date. Regardless of rider category, these trips are priced at $7.50 each.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 112 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.2.6 Roseville Transit Dial-A-Ride Fare Structure Senior/ Age 4 and Fare Type General Public Disabled ADA under Single Fare $3.75 $2.50* $2.50* Free** 10-Ride Ticket Book $37.50 $25.00* $25.00* Same-Day Trips $7.50 $7.50 $7.50 *Requires certain forms of identification. **Up to two children ages 4 and under with fare-paying adult.

Roseville Transit Operations Staffing The Alternative Transportation Division within the Department of Public Works for the City of Roseville contracts with MV Transportation for the day-to-day operation of Roseville Transit (fixed- route, DAR, and Commuter Service). MV Transportation General Manager reports directly to the City’s Alternative Transportation Manager.

Contractor staff includes a general manager, accounting manager, operations manager, and safety and training manager. Thirty-eight full-time and eight part-time drivers are assigned to the Roseville project. Other MV Transportation staff includes one bus washer and five dispatchers. Roseville Transit vehicles are maintained by the City of Roseville’s Fleet Services staff.

The contractor has an operations center d in the City’s Corporation Yard located at 2071 Hilltop Circle. The operations center is adjacent to the vehicle maintenance facility.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 113 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.2.7 Roseville Transit Organizational Chart

Alternative

Transportation

Manager

Accounting Operations Safety and Training

Manager Manager Manager

Bus Washer (1) Dispatchers (5)

FT Operators (38)

PT Operators (8)

Source: Roseville 2009 Triennial Performance Audit

Training The contractor’s local training program for drivers is consistent with its corporate program and exceeds the standards set forth by the Transportation Safety Institute. Each new driver is required to go on the road with a “behind the wheel” trainer to learn the basics of defensive driving, vehicle handling, procedures for loading and unloading passengers, wheelchair securing and restraint procedures, accident and emergency procedures, service area coverage, and driver data collection requirements.

Driver skills are evaluated on a regular basis. The process includes a ride along or unobserved ride check by a field supervisor or the general manager every six months. A supervisor ensures all driver- related licensing/certifications are current. Drivers also are required to attend monthly safety meetings as well as annual retraining and re-certification programs.

New dispatchers are trained on the job by experienced dispatching staff. Dispatchers learn essential skills along with vehicle monitoring and personnel management, ADA requirements, telephone courtesy, customer relations, emergency procedures, etc.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 114 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

South Placer County Regional Call Center In May 2011 the South Placer County Regional Call Center was established, centralizing transit/bus information for the following service providers:  Auburn Transit,  Health Express (for medical appointments only when public transit is not available),  Lincoln Transit,  Placer County Transit, and  Roseville Transit.

The decision to consolidate county transit phone numbers and call services for the partnering transit operators was a result of annual regional public hearings and unmet transit needs.

To access bus schedules and make reservations on South County Dial-A-Ride programs, patrons can call 745-7560 within area codes 916 or 530. The call center is open daily, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Hours may vary on holidays. To cancel Dial-A-Ride reservations patrons may call a dedicated phone number.

Funding for the call center is provided through Placer County Transportation Planning Agency and the Western Placer Consolidated Transportation Services Agency.

Dispatch Procedures Dispatch activities for Roseville Transit are performed by MV Transportation staff. MV uses Trapeze software to perform scheduling and dispatching activities.

ADA Certifications Roseville Transit staff administers the ADA certification process. The City’s ADA eligibility criteria are consistent with ADA requirements and reflect the following eligibility conditions:

 Unable to access a bus stop,  Accessible bus not available,  Unable to use an accessible bus, or  Travel requires personal care attendant (PCA).

The process requires a completed application as well as a disability determination by a doctor, rehabilitation counselor, physical therapist, or other licensed healthcare professional. ADA-certified patrons must re-certify every three years in order to maintain eligibility.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 115 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

ADA Service Compliance To assess compliance with the American Disabilities Act (ADA), our project team reviewed a variety of criteria.

Service Area: The program provides service within Roseville city limits. Dial-a-ride service will travel only to the following locations outside of Roseville: Citrus Heights  California Burger – 8537 Auburn Blvd  K-Mart – 8501 Auburn Blvd  Jack in the Box – 8655 Auburn Blvd

Granite Bay  Bayside Church – 8171 Sierra College Blvd  Burger King – 4040 Douglas Blvd  Lincoln Training Center – 8331 Sierra College Blvd  Quizno’s – 8405 Sierra College Blvd

Rocklin  Carl’s Jr. – 6741 Stanford Ranch Rd  Food Source – 6681 Five Star Blvd  La Bou – 6801 Five Star Blvd

Reservations: Reservations are accepted between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. Reservations can be made the day prior to desired travel or up to seven days in advance. Same-day trip requests are provided when available and require a payment of a fare of $7.50 across all rider categories.

Subscriptions: Standing orders are available to ADA-certified patrons.

Scheduling: Passengers are given a 30-minute pick-up window when they schedule their reservation. The dial-a-ride vehicle can arrive anytime within the given 30-minute timeframe.

Curb-to-curb: DAR riders are responsible for accessing the vehicle at the curb at their scheduled pick-up time.

Data Collection and Reporting MV Transportation reports extensive operating information to the City of Roseville. A representative sampling of various operating data and reports reveals monthly reports submitted to the City cover a variety of performance areas specific to the fixed-route, Commuter Bus, and Dial-A-Ride programs.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 116 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

System Performance Indicators This section evaluates the City’s transit system performance using a series of quantitative criteria to assess effectiveness and efficiency. The indicators were evaluated across a five-year period. System evaluations reflect performance of the fixed-route local service, commuter service, and the Dial-A- Ride program. System totals are illustrated in Exhibit A.2.8. System totals for ridership and fare revenue provided within TPA may differ from data presented herein.

Exhibit A.2.8 System Performance Indicators Performance Measure FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 Operating Cost $3,515,830 $4,125,901 $4,209,131 $4,715,565 $4,852,634 percent change 17.4% 2.0% 12.0% 2.9% Fare Revenue $542,670 $635,199 $734,398 $852,355 $829,119 percent change 17.1% 15.6% 16.1% -2.7% Vehicle Service Hours 65,443 60,762 57,158 58,887 61,836 percent change -7.2% -5.9% 3.0% 5.0% Vehicle Service Miles 960,804 859,003 782,748 839,199 860,925 percent change -10.6% -8.9% 7.2% 2.6% Passengers 413,882 414,860 405,420 433,957 400,839 percent change 0.2% -2.3% 7.0% -7.6% Performance Indicator Operating Cost/VSH $53.72 $67.90 $73.64 $80.08 $78.48 percent change 26.4% 8.4% 8.7% -2.0% Operating Cost/VSM $3.66 $4.80 $5.38 $5.62 $5.64 percent change 31.3% 12.0% 4.5% 0.3% Operating Cost/Passenger $8.49 $9.95 $10.38 $10.87 $12.11 percent change 17.1% 4.4% 4.7% 11.4% Passengers/VSH 6.32 6.83 7.09 7.37 6.48 percent change 8.0% 3.9% 3.9% -12.0% Passengers/VSM 0.43 0.48 0.52 0.52 0.47 percent change 12.1% 7.2% -0.2% -10.0% Farebox Recovery 15.4% 15.4% 17.4% 18.1% 17.1% percent change -0.3% 13.3% 3.6% -5.5% Fare/Passenger $1.31 $1.53 $1.81 $1.96 $2.07 percent change 16.8% 18.3% 8.4% 5.3%

System Ridership Exhibit A.2.9 shows the system ridership for Roseville Transit. Ridership decreased 3.2 percent (13,043 unlinked trips) between FY 2005/06 and FY 2009/10. FY 2008/09 saw a 7.0 percent increase in unlinked trips. This could be due in part to the introduction of Local Route S in late 2008, a “shuttle-style” service connecting the Santucci Justice Center and the Galleria Mall which accounted for 1,189 unlinked trips in its initial six months of operation. Additionally, the City added two new routes to its Commuter Bus Service (AM/PM Route 8 and AM/PM Route 51).

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 117 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Passengers/Vehicle Service Hour Passenger/Vehicle Service Hour is one of the more commonly used measures for illustrating the productivity level of a transit program during revenue generating hours of operation. This metric quantifies the number of rides provided per single revenue or service hour (See Figure A.2.10).

Across the evaluation period, Passenger/VSH increased until FY 2009/10 which noted a 12- percent decrease. Despite a 7.2 percent drop in Vehicle Service Hours, the City managed to add more than 1,000 riders which helped improve overall productivity. This was followed by further reductions in Vehicle Service Hours in FY 2007/2008 which saw a smaller percentage drop in passengers. As a result, Roseville Transit continued to experience increased productivity.

Only FY 2009/10 saw a decrease in this performance metric. Given the regional economy, there were fewer riders than in the previous fiscal year. The declining ridership, in concert with increased Vehicle Service Hours, resulted in a declining system-wide productivity.

Passengers/Vehicle Service Mile Passengers/VSM is another measurement for gauging system performance and effectiveness. This metric calculates unlinked trips provided for each revenue service mile.

As Exhibit A.2.11 shows, Passenger/VSM held fairly steady across the evaluation period. FY 2006/2007 saw the largest increase in this metric due largely to a slight increase in ridership despite fewer Vehicle Service Miles. FY 2009/10 saw the largest decrease in the metric when Passengers/VSM fell by 10 percent. As with Passengers/VSH, this metric declined significantly due to the weak economy resulting in reduced demand.

Operating Cost/Vehicle Service Hour Operating Cost/VSH illustrates the cost incurred by a transit operator in operating a single hour of revenue service.

Exhibit A.2.12 shows the cost to provide a single hour of revenue service increased for the majority of the evaluation period with the exception of FY 2009/10. The decline in Operating Cost/VSH observed in FY 2009/10 was due largely to a modest increase in Operating Cost and a larger increase by percentage in the number of Vehicle Service Hours.

Operating Cost/Vehicle Service Mile This metric measures cost-effectiveness of operating the transit system by calculating the total cost expended to operate a single mile of revenue service.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 118 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.2.13 reveals the City faced increasing cost to provide a single mile of revenue service over the evaluation period. The large spike observed in FY 2006/07 is due to an almost 11- percent decline in Vehicle Service Miles and a 17-percent increase in Operating Costs.

Operating Cost/Passenger Another gauge of cost-effectiveness, Cost/Passenger indicates the amount the City spends system-wide for a single unlinked trip.

Exhibit A.2.14 shows the cost for each unlinked trip increased throughout the evaluation period. Roseville Transit experienced two double-digit spikes in Operating Cost/Passenger, in FY 2006/07 and in FY 2009/10. In FY 2006/07, the rapid increase in Operating Costs caused a spike in this metric while in FY 2009/10 a sharp decline in the number of passengers resulted in higher costs per passenger for the City.

Farebox Recovery Ratio Farebox Recovery Ratio calculates the percentage of operating cost recovered through passenger fares. It is the most common measure of public subsidy of a transit service.

Across the evaluation period, the City had an average farebox recovery ratio of 16.7 percent. This is below the 18.7 percent farebox recovery noted in the prior Short Range Transit Plan. We believe primary cause for the lower farebox recovery ratio is eroding farebox recovery ratio of the City’s Commuter Bus Service which declined from its former high of 100 percent to nearly 71 percent across the evaluation period.

Fare/Passenger This metric indicates the average fare paid by each passenger/unlinked trip on Roseville Transit.

Exhibit A.2.16 shows the Fare/Passenger metric increased across the evaluation period. FY 2006/07 and FY 2007/08 saw double-digit increases which suggests more passengers are paying the full fare rather than a reduced fare.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 119 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.2.9 System Ridership Exhibit A.2.10 System Passenger/VSH

500,000 8% 7.60 10% 7.0% 8.0% 7.37 450,000 6% 7.40 413,882 414,860 405,420 433,957 3.9% 5% 4% 7.20 400,000 400,839 3.9% 7.09 2% 7.00 350,000 0.2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6.80 6.83 300,000 -2% -2.3% 6.60 250,000 -5% 6.48 -4% 6.40 200,000 -6% 6.32 6.20 -10% 150,000 -8% -7.6% 6.00 -12.0% 100,000 -10% 5.80 -15% FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 Passengers Percent Change Passengers/VSH Percent Change

Exhibit A.2.11 System Passengers/VSM Exhibit A.2.12 System Operating Cost/VSH

0.60 15% $90.00 30%

26.4% $80.08 12.1% 0.52 $80.00 0.52 $78.48 $73.64 25% 0.50 10% 0.48 0.47 $70.00 7.2% 0.43 $67.90 20% 0.40 5% $60.00

$53.72 15% $50.00 -0.2% 0.30 0% 0% $40.00 10% 8.4% 8.7% 0.20 -5% $30.00 5%

$20.00 0.10 -10% -10.0% 0% 0% $10.00 -2.0%

0.00 -15% $0.00 -5% FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10

Passenger/VSM Percent Change Operating Cost/VSH Percent Change

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 120 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.2.13 System Operating Cost/VSM Exhibit A.2.14 System Operating Cost/Passenger

$6.00 35% $14.00 18% $5.62 $5.38 $5.64 17.1% 31.3% $12.11 16% 30% $5.00 $12.00 $10.87 $4.80 $10.38 14% 25% $10.00 $4.00 $9.95 12% 11.4% $8.49 $3.66 20% $8.00 10% $3.00 8% 15% $6.00 12.0% $2.00 6% 10% $4.00 4.7% 4.4% 4% $1.00 4.5% 5% $2.00 2% 0% 0.3% 0% $0.00 0% $0.00 0% FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10

Operating Cost/VSM Percent Change Operating Cost/Passenger Percent Change

Exhibit A.2.15 System Farebox Recovery Ratio Exhibit A.2.16 System Fare/Passenger

18.5% 15% $2.50 20%

13.3% 18.1% 18.3% 18% 18.0% 16.8% $2.07 10% $2.00 16% 17.5% $1.96 17.4% 14% 17.1% $1.81 17.0%

5% $1.50 12% 3.6% 16.5% $1.53 10% $1.31 16.0% 8.4% -0.3% 0% 0% $1.00 8%

15.5% 6% 15.4% 15.4% 5.3% 15.0% -5% -5.5% $0.50 4%

14.5% 2%

0% 14.0% -10% $0.00 0% FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10

Farebox Recovery Percent Change Fare/Passenger Percent Change

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 121 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Fixed-Route Performance Indicators This section evaluates the City’s fixed-route service using a series of quantitative criteria to assess effectiveness and efficiency. The indicators were evaluated across a five-year period. Fixed-route services consist of the five fixed-route alignments.

Exhibit A.2.17 Fixed-Route Performance Indicators Performance Measure FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 Operating Cost $2,357,133 $2,640,577 $2,627,095 $2,934,416 $3,058,952 percent change 12.0% -0.5% 11.7% 4.2% Fare Revenue $171,974 $219,200 $225,062 $326,119 $291,030 percent change 27.5% 2.7% 44.9% -10.8% Vehicle Service Hours 40,678 36,633 35,158 35,386 38,818 percent change -9.9% -4.0% 0.6% 9.7% Vehicle Service Miles 562,713 492,933 455,166 468,928 483,662 percent change -12.4% -7.7% 3.0% 3.1% Passengers 280,957 284,568 273,758 291,367 258,493 percent change 1.3% -3.8% 6.4% -11.3% Performance Indicator Operating Cost/VSH $57.95 $72.08 $74.72 $82.93 $78.80 percent change 24.4% 3.7% 11.0% -5.0% Operating Cost/VSM $4.19 $5.36 $5.77 $6.26 $6.32 percent change 27.9% 7.7% 8.4% 1.1% Operating Cost/Passenger $8.39 $9.28 $9.60 $10.07 $11.83 percent change 10.6% 3.4% 4.9% 17.5% Passengers/VSH 6.91 7.77 7.79 8.23 6.66 percent change 12.5% 0.2% 5.7% -19.1% Passengers/VSM 0.50 0.58 0.60 0.62 0.53 percent change 15.6% 4.2% 3.3% -14.0% Farebox Recovery 7.3% 8.3% 8.6% 11.1% 9.5% percent change 13.8% 3.2% 29.7% -14.4% Fare/Passenger $0.61 $0.77 $0.82 $1.12 $1.13 percent change 25.8% 6.7% 36.1% 0.6%

Ridership Exhibit A.2.18 shows ridership for the City’s fixed-route service. Ridership varied widely across the evaluation period, with the largest increase in riders in FY 2008/09 which was followed by the sharpest decline in FY 2009/10.

The precipitous decline in ridership posted in FY 2009/10 was likely caused by the faltering economy which reduced transit demand. Additionally, the City eliminated five routes (Routes E, F, H, J, and K) in May 2010 as a cost savings measure which resulted in decreased ridership and fare revenue.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 122 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Ridership by Route Moore & Associates analyzed ridership data at the individual route level for the period FY 2007/08 to FY 2009/10. Exhibit A.2.19 illustrates how each route evolved across the three-year period. Routes A, B, and M posted in the top three in terms of ridership. This is not surprising given Routes A and B operate in tandem and stop at key transfer locations as well as have the most frequent headways of any Roseville Transit route. Route M serves important shopping centers and activity centers. Each of the top routes serve the Roseville Galleria, which based on our ride check analysis, has the highest transfer as well as boarding and alighting activity.

Passengers/Vehicle Service Hour One of the most commonly used yardsticks for assessing public transit service productivity is Passengers/VSH. This indicator quantifies the number of rides provided within a single revenue hour.

The Passenger/VSH metric fluctuated widely across the evaluation period. The peaks and troughs of this metric mirrored the Ridership performance data. This is not surprising given Vehicle Service Hours remained relatively stable while Ridership varied across the evaluation period.

In order to improve this metric, we recommend the City reduce Vehicle Service Hours on underperforming routes and undertake a targeted marketing campaign promoting improved service connectivity.

Passengers/Vehicle Service Hour by Route Exhibit A.2.21 shows the Passenger/VSH by Route. Routes A, B, and M were the most productive routes, mirroring Exhibit A.2.19. Every route experienced a decline in this metric except for Routes I, L, and S which suggests these routes may attract a more diverse customer base beyond simply commuters.

Passengers/Vehicle Service Mile Passengers/VSM is another metric commonly employed when evaluating public transit service effectiveness. It calculates the number of rides provided for each service mile traveled.

Roseville Transit transported more Passengers/VSM each evaluation year with the exception of FY 2009/10 which saw a 14-percent decline. While there has been temporary ridership declines attributable chiefly to the economic downturn, we recommend the City continue its transit marketing activities, especially with particular focus on the highest performing routes.

Operating Cost/Vehicle Service Hour This indicator serves as a measure of a transit program’s cost-effectiveness, illustrating the cost of providing a single hour of revenue service.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 123 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

With the exception of FY 2009/10, Exhibit A.2.23 shows the City encountered increasing Cost/VSH. Ideally, a transit operator hope for Operating Cost to be flat or in line with inflation. Throughout the evaluation period, Roseville Transit experienced increased Operating Cost (except FY 2007/08 which was near zero percent). As a result, the cost of providing a single hour of revenue service continues to increase.

Operating Cost/Vehicle Service Mile This metric serves as a barometer of a transit program’s cost-effectiveness by illustrating the cost of providing a single mile of revenue service.

Across the evaluation period, it became increasingly expensive for the City to provide a single mile of revenue service. FY 2006/07 saw the largest spike in this metric with a near 28-percent increase in the cost of providing a mile of revenue service.

By contrast, FY 2009/10 should serve as a goal for Roseville Transit. Both Operating Cost and Vehicle Service Miles increased at nearly the same rate. As a result, Roseville Transit is able to provide more service at nearly the same cost as the previous fiscal year.

Operating Cost/Passenger Another gauge of cost-effectiveness, Cost/Passenger indicates how much the City is spending to provide each unlinked trip.

As presented in Exhibit A.2.25, operating costs across the evaluation period increased per unlinked trip. The spike in Operating Cost/Passenger during FY 2006/07 likely resulted from the high price of fuel during the time of this report. By contrast, the more than 17-percent increase in the metric is largely due to severe declines in Ridership. Since Operating Cost did not decline at the same rate in the fiscal year, the Operating Cost/Passenger spiked.

Given the spike in the metric is tied largely to the number of Passengers rather than Operating Cost, the City should focus on attracting additional riders. This can be accomplished through a variety of tactics including additional marketing campaigns, enhanced service coordination, and increased frequency on heavily patronized lines to further attract riders.

Farebox Recovery Ratio Farebox Recovery Ratio calculates the percentage of operating cost recovered through passenger fares. It is the most common measure of public subsidy of a transit service.

With the exception of FY 2008/09, Farebox Recovery Ratio was below 10 percent across the evaluation period, dropping to 9.5 percent during the prior fiscal year. This is below the 15 percent Farebox Recovery Ratio standard established for the City by PCTPA.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 124 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Fare/Passenger This metric calculates the average fare paid for every unlinked trip provided by Roseville Transit.

Across the evaluation period this metric increased by nearly 84 percent to $1.13 per Passenger. This continued growth suggests more patrons are paying the full fare given the highest Fare/Passenger cited is more than $2.00 while the adult base fare is $1.50 for a one-way trip.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 125 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.2.18 Fixed-Route Ridership Exhibit A.2.19 Fixed-Route Ridership by Route

300,000 8% 80,000 6.4% 6% 68,807 69,211 290,000 70,000 4% 284,568 291,367 60,791 280,957 2% 60,000 55,429 280,000 1.3% 0% 273,758 51,646 0% 50,000 47,478 -2% 270,000 -3.8% -4% 40,000 33,424 -6% 30,243 30,642 260,000 30,000

258,493 -8% 19,664 19,471 20,000 17,851 -10% 15,551 250,000 12,090 15,204 14,209 10,166 10,850 11,674 9,028 8,800 9,892 9,124 -11.3% -12% 10,000 8,781 8,477 8,252 8,450 2,842 240,000 -14% 1,189 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 - Route A Route B Route C Route D Route G Route I Route L Route M Route R Route S Passengers Percent Change FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10

Exhibit A.2.20 Fixed-Route Passengers/VSH Exhibit A.2.21 Fixed-Route Passengers/VSH by Route

9.00 15% 70,000 8.23 12.5% 63,658 8.00 10% 59,590 60,000 7.77 7.79 5.7% 7.00 5% 51,319 6.91 6.66 49,077 50,000 6.00 0% 0% 0.2% 5.00 40,000 -5% 4.00 30,419 30,000 27,780 -10% 3.00

20,000 -15% 17,764 17,927 2.00 13,004 11,076 12,669 -19.1% 9,166 8,907 10,542 8,450 -20% 10,000 8,208 8,800 1.00 7,421

2,842 0.00 -25% 1,189 - FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 Route A Route B Route C Route D Route G Route I Route L Route M Route R Route S

Passengers/VSH Percent Change FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 126 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.2.22 Fixed-Route Passengers/VSM Exhibit A.2.23 Fixed-Route Operating Cost/VSH

0.70 20% $90.00 30% $82.93 0.62 0.60 15.6% 15% $80.00 25% 0.60 24.4% $74.72 $78.80 0.58 $70.00 0.53 0.50 10% $72.08 20% 0.50 $60.00 4.2% 5% $57.95 15% 3.3% 0.40 $50.00 11.0% 0% 0% 10% $40.00 0.30 -5% 5% $30.00 3.7% 0.20 -10% 0% 0% $20.00 -5.0% 0.10 -15% $10.00 -5% -14.0%

0.00 -20% $0.00 -10% FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 Passengers/VSM Percent Change Operating Cost/VSH Percent Change Exhibit A.2.24 Fixed-Route Operating Cost/VSM Exhibit A.2.25 Fixed-Route Operating Cost/Passenger

$7.00 30% $14.00 20%

27.9% $6.26 $6.32 17.5% 18% $6.00 Cost/Passenger 25% $12.00 $5.77 $11.83 16% $5.36 $10.07 $5.00 $10.00 14% 20% $9.28 $4.19 $9.60 $8.39 12% $4.00 $8.00 10.6% 15% 10%

$3.00 $6.00 8%

10% 8.4% $2.00 $4.00 6% 7.7% 4.9% 3.4% 4% 5% $1.00 $2.00 2% 0% 0% 1.1% $0.00 0% $0.00 0% FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10

Operating Cost/VSM Percent Change Operating Cost/Passenger Percent Change

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 127 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.2.26 Fixed-Route Farebox Recovery Ratio Exhibit A.2.27 Fixed-Route Fare/Passenger

$1.20 40% 12.0% 35% 11.1% $1.12 $1.13 30% 36.1% 35% 10.0% $1.00 25% 29.7% 9.5% 8.6% 30% 8.3% 20% $0.82 8.0% 25.8% 15% $0.80 13.8% $0.77 25% 7.3% 10% 6.0% 5% $0.60 20% 3.2% $0.61 0% 0% 4.0% 15% -5% $0.40

-10% 10% 2.0%

-14.4% -15% $0.20 6.7% 5% 0.0% -20% FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 0% 0.6% $0.00 0% Farebox Recovery Percent Change FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 128 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Commuter Bus Service Performance Indicators This section evaluates the City’s Commuter Bus Service based on a series of quantitative criteria used determine service effectiveness and efficiency. The indicators were evaluated over a five-year period which support trend analysis.

Exhibit A.2.28 Commuter Bus Service Performance Performance Measure FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 Operating Cost $338,890 $453,849 $508,470 $611,380 $670,193 percent change 33.9% 12.0% 20.2% 9.6% Fare Revenue $273,130 $300,854 $372,869 $411,264 $448,475 percent change 10.2% 23.9% 10.3% 9.0% Vehicle Service Hours 7,444 7,675 7,156 8,228 9,018 percent change 3.1% -6.8% 15.0% 9.6% Vehicle Service Miles 182,199 176,091 163,891 203,717 219,841 percent change -3.4% -6.9% 24.3% 7.9% Passengers 86,375 88,852 96,945 107,091 109,584 percent change 2.9% 9.1% 10.5% 2.3% Performance Indicator Operating Cost/VSH $45.53 $59.13 $71.06 $74.30 $74.32 percent change 29.9% 20.2% 4.6% 0.0% Operating Cost/VSM $1.86 $2.58 $3.10 $3.00 $3.05 percent change 38.6% 20.4% -3.3% 1.6% Operating Cost/Passenger $3.92 $5.11 $5.24 $5.71 $6.12 percent change 30.2% 2.7% 8.8% 7.1% Passengers/VSH 11.60 11.58 13.55 13.02 12.15 percent change -0.2% 17.0% -3.9% -6.6% Passengers/VSM 0.47 0.50 0.59 0.53 0.50 percent change 6.4% 17.2% -11.1% -5.2% Farebox Recovery 80.6% 66.3% 73.3% 67.3% 66.9% percent change -17.8% 10.6% -8.3% -0.5% Fare/Passenger $3.16 $3.39 $3.85 $3.84 $4.09 percent change 7.1% 13.6% -0.2% 6.6%

Ridership Exhibit A.2.29 illustrates ridership for the City’s Commuter Bus Service. Ridership increased steadily across the evaluation period, growing on average 5,800 new riders annually.

Despite the current economic downturn, the Commuter Bus Service continued to attract additional riders between FY 2008/09 and FY 2009/10. We believe this growth can be attributed to the increase service capacity (i.e., additional service trips) as well as Roseville commuters seeking out lower-cost commute options given the continued poor economy.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 129 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Passengers/Vehicle Service Hour One of the most commonly employed yardsticks for assessing transit service effectiveness, Passengers/VSH quantifies the number of rides provided within a single service hour.

The Passenger/VSH metric hit its peak in FY 2007/08 at 13.55. The large increase in FY 2007/08 can be attributed to a nine percent increase in Passengers along with a seven percent reduction in Vehicle Service Hours. As a result, the Commuter Bus Service transported nearly 14 passengers per hour.

By contrast, subsequent fiscal years saw the metric decline as the City added Vehicle Service Hours at a rate outpacing the increase in Ridership. This suggests Roseville Transit reached a market saturation point barring substantial shifts in commuter demand (i.e., rising fuel costs, lower fares, more employment, etc.).

Passengers/Vehicle Service Mile Passengers/VSM is another commonly employed standard for evaluating public transit service performance. It calculates the number of passengers transported for each service mile traveled.

As with the Passengers/VSH metric, Passenger/VSM peaked in FY 2007/08 at nearly 0.6. After FY 2007/08, the City increased the amount of service offered to address increased demand for the Commuter Service. However, while overall ridership increased, it appears capacity outpaced demand.

Operating Cost/Vehicle Service Hour This indicator serves as a measure of a program’s cost-effectiveness by calculating how much it costs to provide a single hour of revenue service.

The Operating Cost/VSH increased consistently across the evaluation period peaking at $74.32 in FY 2009/10. Escalating Operating Cost fueled the increase in this metric especially in FY 2006/07 (34 percent increase) and FY 2008/09 (20 percent increase). Controlling Operating Cost should be a priority for the City.

Operating Cost/Vehicle Service Mile This indicator serves as a measure of a program’s cost-effectiveness by calculating the costs to provide a single mile of revenue service.

Exhibit A.2.33 shows the Operating Cost/VSM for the Commuter Bus Service. With the exception of a slight dip in FY 2008/09, the metric increased throughout the evaluation period. FY 2006/07 saw the largest increase (nearly 39 percent). We conclude much this increase can be attributed to the volatility of the fuel pricing.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 130 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Operating Cost/Passenger Another yardstick of cost-effectiveness, Operating Cost/Passenger calculates the cost of each unlinked trip.

Given rising Operating Cost, it is no surprise this metric increased throughout the evaluation period. Despite growing Ridership, the metric increased because the rate of increase for Operating Cost exceeded the increase in Passengers. In other words, the metric shows it has become increasingly expensive to transport each passenger despite increased annual Ridership. Since the City has little control over the cost of fuel it must remain diligent in its effects to match capacity with demand.

Farebox Recovery Ratio Farebox Recovery Ratio calculates the percentage of operating cost recovered through passenger fares. It is the most common measure of public subsidy of a transit service.

Across the evaluation period, the Commuter Bus Service had an average Farebox Recovery Ratio of nearly 71 percent. This metric is lower than noted in the prior Short Range Transit Plan likely due to increased Operating Cost outpacing Ridership growth.

Fare/Passenger This indicator calculates the average fare collected for each unlinked trip provided by the City’s Commuter Bus Service.

The metric has increased over the evaluated period. Given the base fare for Roseville residents is $3.25 per one-way trip, the increase in the metric suggests an increasing number of non- Roseville residents use the service (since non-resident fare is $4.50 per one-way trip).

This may also suggest fewer Commuter Bus customers are taking advantage of the monthly pass which offers a lower per trip price.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 131 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.2.29 Commuter Bus Service Annual Ridership Exhibit A.2.30 Commuter Bus Service Passengers/VSH

120,000 12% 14.00 20% 107,091 17.0% 109,584 10.5% 13.50 100,000 96,945 10% 15% 13.55 13.02 86,375 13.00 88,852 9.1% 80,000 8% 10%

12.50 5% 60,000 6% 12.15 12.00

11.60 -0.2% 0% 40,000 4% 11.50 0% 11.58 2.9% -3.9% 2.3% -5% 20,000 2% 11.00 -6.6%

0% 10.50 -10% 0 0% FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 Passengers Percent Change Passengers/VSH Percent Change Exhibit A.2.31 Commuter Bus Service Passengers/VSM Exhibit A.2.32 Commuter Bus Service Operating Cost/VSH

$80.00 35% 0.70 20% 17.2% $74.30 $74.32 $71.06 $70.00 0.60 15% 29.9% 30% 0.59 0.53 0.50 0.50 $60.00 0.50 10% $59.13 25%

0.47 6.4% $50.00 0.40 5% 20.2% 20% $45.53 $40.00

0.30 0% 15% 0% $30.00 -5.2% 0.20 -5% 10% $20.00

0.10 -10% 4.6% 5% -11.1% $10.00

0.00 -15% 0% 0.0% FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 $0.00 0% FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 Passengers/VSM Percent Change Operating Cost/VSH Percent Change

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 132 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.2.33 Commuter Bus Service Operating Cost/VSM Exhibit A.2.34 Commuter Bus Service Operating Cost/Passenger $3.50 45% $7.00 35%

$3.10 $3.05 40% 30.2% 38.6% $6.12 $3.00 $6.00 30% $3.00 35% $5.24 $5.71

$2.50 30% $5.00 25% $5.11 $2.58 25% $1.86 $2.00 $4.00 20% 20.4% 20% $3.92

15% $1.50 $3.00 15% 10% $2.00 10% $1.00 5% 8.8% 1.6% 7.1% 0% 0% $0.50 $1.00 5% -5% -3.3% 0% 2.7% $0.00 0% $0.00 -10% FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10

Operating Cost/VSM Percent Change Operating Cost/Passenger Percent Change

Exhibit A.2.35 Commuter Bus Service Farebox Recovery Exhibit A.2.36 Commuter Bus Service Fare/Passenger

90.0% 15% $4.50 16%

80.6% 10.6% 13.6% $4.09 80.0% $4.00 14% 10% $3.85 $3.84 70.0% $3.50 12% 73.3% 66.9% 67.3% 5% $3.39 66.3% $3.16 60.0% $3.00 10% -0.5% 0% 50.0% 0% $2.50 8%

7.1% 40.0% 6.6% -5% $2.00 6%

30.0% $1.50 4% -8.3% -10% 20.0% $1.00 2% -15% 10.0% $0.50 0% -17.8% 0% -0.2% 0.0% -20% FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 $0.00 -2% FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10

Farebox Recovery Percent Change Fare/Passenger Percent Change

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 133 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Dial-A-Ride Performance Indicators This section evaluates the City of Roseville’s Dial-A-Ride service based on a series of quantitative criteria to determine the effectiveness and efficiency. The indicators were evaluated over a five-year period which supports trend analysis.

Exhibit A.2.37 Dial-A-Ride Performance Performance Measure FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 Operating Cost $819,807 $1,031,475 $1,073,566 $1,169,769 $1,123,489 percent change 25.8% 4.1% 9.0% -4.0% Fare Revenue $97,566 $115,145 $136,467 $114,972 $89,614 percent change 18.0% 18.5% -15.8% -22.1% Vehicle Service Hours 17,321 16,454 14,844 15,273 14,000 percent change -5.0% -9.8% 2.9% -8.3% Vehicle Service Miles 215,892 189,979 163,691 166,554 157,422 percent change -12.0% -13.8% 1.7% -5.5% Passengers 46,550 41,440 34,717 35,499 32,762 percent change -11.0% -16.2% 2.3% -7.7% Performance Indicator Operating Cost/VSH $47.33 $62.69 $72.32 $76.59 $80.25 percent change 32.4% 15.4% 5.9% 4.8% Operating Cost/VSM $3.80 $5.43 $6.56 $7.02 $7.14 percent change 43.0% 20.8% 7.1% 1.6% Operating Cost/Passenger $17.61 $24.89 $30.92 $32.95 $34.29 percent change 41.3% 24.2% 6.6% 4.1% Passengers/VSH 2.69 2.52 2.34 2.32 2.34 percent change -6.3% -7.1% -0.6% 0.7% Passengers/VSM 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.21 percent change 1.2% -2.8% 0.5% -2.4% Farebox Recovery 11.9% 11.2% 12.7% 9.8% 8.0% percent change -6.2% 13.9% -22.7% -18.8% Fare/Passenger $2.10 $2.78 $3.93 $3.24 $2.74 percent change 32.6% 41.5% -17.6% -15.5%

Ridership Exhibit A.2.38 shows the ridership for the Dial-A-Ride service over the five-year evaluation period. With the exception of a modest increase between FY 2007/2008 and FY 2008/2009, annual ridership declined. This is puzzling given our demographic analysis which revealed growth in both senior and persons with disabilities populations. One of two possible “top level” conclusions: either the City has been successful in mode-shifting able-bodied seniors off the Dial-A-Ride service to more cost-effective fixed-route service or portions of the Dial-A-Ride customer base are reducing their patronage due to factors associated with the weakened economy. In any event, it is critical the City continue to effectively balance program capacity with demand, reducing the former wherever practical.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 134 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Passengers/Vehicle Service Hour One of the most commonly employed yardsticks for assessing service effectiveness, Passengers/VSH, quantifies the number of rides provided within a single service hour.

The Passengers/VSH metric declined before leveling out in FY 2007/08. Given the on-demand nature of the Dial-A-Ride service, one should expect passenger and operations metrics (VSH, VSM, etc.) to closely mirror changes in ridership.

Passengers/Vehicle Service Mile Passengers/VSM is another commonly employed metric for evaluating public transit service performance. It calculates the number of passengers transported for each service mile traveled.

As with the prior metric, VSM varies directly with the number of Passengers. As such it remained relatively stable over the evaluation period as Passengers and VSM varied largely by the same rate.

Operating Cost/Vehicle Service Hour This indicator serves as a measure of a program’s cost-effectiveness by determining the cost to provide a single hour of revenue service.

Increasing Operating Cost drove this metric higher especially in FY 2006/07. One key observation is Operating Cost did not decline despite reductions in VSH. This suggests non- direct Operating Cost (i.e., administrative costs) continued to rise and consequently eroded the cost-effectiveness of the Dial-A-Ride program.

Operating Cost/Vehicle Service Mile This indicator serves as a measure of a program’s-cost effectiveness by determining how much it costs to provide a single mile of revenue service.

Operating Cost/VSM shown in Exhibit A.2.42 increased throughout the evaluation period. As with Operating Cost/VSH (above), escalating Operating Costs/VSM resulted in a less cost- effective service. Here again we believe non-direct Operating Cost to be a contributor to erosion of cost-effective operation of the Dial-A-Ride.

Operating Cost/Passenger Another measure of cost-effectiveness, Operating Cost/Passenger determines how much the City spends on each unlinked trip it provides. See Exhibit A.2.43.

Operating Cost/Passenger increased throughout the evaluation period given Operating Cost continued to increase while Ridership continually declined. As a result, it became increasingly expensive to operate each subsequent year. To reverse this trend, the City will need to rein in Operating Costs while also increasing productivity (preferably by increasing ridership).

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 135 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Farebox Recovery Ratio Farebox Recovery Ratio calculates the percentage of Operating Cost recovered through passenger fares. It is the most common measure of public subsidy of a transit service.

Exhibit A.2.44 shows the Farebox Recovery Ratio. For most of the evaluation period, the Farebox Recovery Ratio remained above 10 percent except during FY 2009/10 where it slipped to eight percent. When compared with other dial-a-ride service providers in Placer County, the City’s program has a much higher Farebox Recovery Ratio.

Fare/Passenger This indicator calculates the average fare collected for each unlinked trip provided by the City’s demand-response service.

The increasing Fare/Passenger through FY 2007/08 suggest more patrons were paying the adult cash fare of $3.75 and/or utilizing the same-day service which has a fare of $7.50. The decline in Fare/Passenger after FY 2007/08 points to an increasing number of patrons who likely fall within the Senior/Disabled or ADA fare category of $2.50.

The key finding from this exhibit is the durability of Fare/Passenger to remain the same despite declines in Ridership. This suggests the fare adjustments as well as the ability of the general public to use the service and same-day service pricing allow for greater flexibility and more diverse revenue base for the Dial-A-Ride Service. The City may wish to explore marketing the Dial-A-Ride to a broader cross-section of the public, especially the same-day service, to increase both fare revenue and other efficiencies.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 136 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.2.38 Dial-A-Ride Annual Ridership Exhibit A.2.39 Dial-A-Ride Passengers/VSH 50,000 5% 2.80 2% 46,550 2.3% 0.7% 45,000 1% 41,440 2.70 0% 2.69 40,000 0% 0% 0% -0.6% 34,717 35,499 2.60 35,000 -1% 32,762 30,000 -5% 2.52 -2% 2.50

25,000 -3% -7.7% 2.40 20,000 -10% -4% -11.0% 2.34 2.32 2.34 15,000 2.30 -5% 10,000 -15% -6.3% -6% -16.2% 2.20 5,000 -7% -7.1%

0 -20% 2.10 -8% FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 Passengers Percent Change Passengers/VSH Percent Change Exhibit A.2.40 Dial-A-Ride Passengers/VSM Exhibit A.2.41 Dial-A-Ride Operating Cost/VSH 0.30 10% $90.00 35%

32.4% $80.25 8% $80.00 $72.32 30% 6% $76.59 $70.00 0.25 $62.69 4% 25% $60.00 0.22 0.22 0.21 0.21 2% 20% $50.00 0.21 1.2% 0.20 0% $47.33 0.5% 15.4% 0% $40.00 15% -2% -2.4% -2.8% $30.00 -4% 10% 0.15 $20.00 -6% 5.9% 4.8% 5% -8% $10.00

0% 0.10 -10% $0.00 0% FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10

Passengers/VSM Percent Change Operating Cost/VSH Percent Change

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 137 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.2.42 Dial-A-Ride Operating Cost/VSM Exhibit A.2.43 Dial-A-Ride Operating Cost/Passenger $40.00 45% $8.00 50% 41.3% $7.02 $7.14 43.0% 45% $35.00 40% $7.00 $34.29 $30.92 $32.95 $6.56 40% 35% $6.00 $30.00 35% 30% $5.43 $5.00 $25.00 30% $24.89 25% 24.2% $4.00 25% $20.00 $3.80 20% 20.8% 20% $17.61 $3.00 $15.00 15% 15% $2.00 $10.00 10% 10% 7.1% 6.6% $1.00 $5.00 5% 5% 4.1% 0% 1.6% 0% $0.00 0% $0.00 0% FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10

Operating Cost/VSM Percent Change Operating Cost/Passenger Percent Change Exhibit A.2.44 Dial-A-Ride Farebox Recovery Ratio Exhibit A.2.45 Dial-A-Ride Fare/Passenger 14.0% 20% $4.50 50% 12.7% 41.5% 11.9% 15% $4.00 12.0% 40% 32.6% $3.93 13.9% 10% $3.50 11.2% 9.8% $3.24 30% 10.0% 5% $3.00 $2.74 20% 0% 8.0% $2.78 0% $2.50 8.0% $2.10 10% -5% 6.0% $2.00 -6.2% 0% 0% -10% $1.50 4.0% -10% -15% $1.00 -18.8% -17.6% -15.5% 2.0% -20% $0.50 -20% -22.7% 0.0% -25% $0.00 -30% FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10

Farebox Recovery Percent Change Fare/Passenger Percent Change

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 138 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Service Evaluation Key Findings  The City continues to meet the TDA system farebox recovery rate of 15 percent.  Despite the economic recession, ridership has remained relatively stable.  Increasing Operating Cost is a key concern.  Fixed-route ridership dropped by 11.3 percent in FY 2009/10, the greatest decline across the evaluation period.  The City should consider focusing Vehicle Service Hours on its most productive lines so as to improve cost-effectiveness of the system.  The Commuter Bus Service had excellent Farebox Recovery Ratio throughout the evaluation period, but was below the Farebox Recovery Ratio reported in the prior Short Range Transit Plan.  Performance metrics point to the Commuter Service reaching market saturation in FY 2007/08. The City may wish to consider assigning resources to other programs or reducing fares to attract additional riders.  High Operating Cost is the greatest threat to the cost-effectiveness for the Commuter Bus Service.  The Dial-A-Ride Service has a higher Farebox Recovery Ratio than other providers in Placer County.  In spite of lower ridership system-wide, Operating Cost stayed relatively stable.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 139

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

SECTION A.3 – RIDE CHECK ANALYSIS

The purpose of the ride check analysis is to provide a comprehensive assessment of the City of Roseville’s public transit system under actual operating conditions. By analyzing ride check data, a snapshot is formed illustrating the current level of system activity and delivery performance.

This section includes two elements: the system’s overall on-time performance and the route productivity (i.e., boarding and alighting activity) by stop, route, and day-part. Following a review of ride check data, we will present key findings and recommendations to address any service performance challenges revealed through this analysis.

ON-TIME PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS On-time performance analysis is key to providing efficient and equitable public transit service. By evaluating the service at the individual route level and day-part, we are able to pinpoint areas of success as well as areas which may need improvement. Obtaining high on-time performance standards is imperative, as it not only reflects a healthy transit service but benefits the ride-dependent population as well as attracts “choice riders,” or those with other mobility options.

Methodology Ride checks were conducted from September 28, 2010 to October 2, 2010 and reflect a typical service weekday and Saturday service.

The following criteria were used to evaluate the City of Roseville’s transit system on-time performance:  On-time, defined as trip departure occurring up to five minutes after the published schedule time.  Early, defined as any departure from an established time-point occurring in advance of the published schedule time.  Late, defined as any departure from an established time-point occurring five or more minutes after the published schedule time.

Critical to the evaluation process is data segregation by day-part. In doing so, we identified four distinct time blocks:  6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. (early morning),  9:31 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (late morning),  12:31 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. (early afternoon), and  3:31 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. (late afternoon).

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 140

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Roseville Transit routes were on-time to their prospective destinations more than 80 percent of the time. The rate of on-time trips declines during the early afternoon, falling below 80 percent to 77.2 percent. Based on ride check data (see Boarding and Alighting Section), the early afternoon day-part was the second-most productive day-part next to the late morning. Note, higher ridership volumes or stop activity can impact on-time performance by increasing the chances of late departures. As illustrated by Exhibit A.3.1, late arrivals, although minimal throughout the ride check engagement, occurred the most during the early afternoon, illustrating how ridership can greatly impact on-time performance.

Early departures or arrivals occurred about 12 percent of the time, reaching nearly 13 percent during the late afternoon. This may be due to a series of events such as low productivity at stops causing the stop to be passed, thus adding more time to the schedule; or too much time built into the schedule causing the bus to arrive early to each stop.

Early arrivals or departures (i.e., running “hot”) are not acceptable. It can cause the transit system to be perceived as unreliable for its inability to meet the published time. As a result of early departures, patrons who arrive to a stop on-time are more likely to miss their bus if the driver leaves before the published time. To address this issue, the City may consider eliminating time from the schedule or adjusting the schedule to include longer layovers at transfer points. As illustrated through our transfer analysis (Section 1.4), additional minutes or adjustments to the schedule can assist in more seamless connectivity or transfers between regional services at select transfer points. Keep in mind, eliminating too much time from the schedule can lead to delays in arrivals and departures, especially when route productivity increases and higher ridership volumes require the bus to wait longer at a stop for passenger loading.

From a provision of service perspective, industry standards suggest the on-time performance should be at least 90 percent with no early departures. Exhibit A.3.2 shows Roseville is less than ten percent below this standard. By eliminating early departures, the City can meet the 90 percent standard in on-time performance. Note some time points were not accounted for during the ride checks, therefore percentages may not equal 100 percent. Also note weekday and Saturday data were combined in exhibits to create an overall depiction of system performance.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 141

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.3.1 Overall On-Time Performance by Day-Part

90.0% 82.7% 80.9% 81.1% 77.2% 80.0% 83.8% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 11.5% 11.5% 12.8% 10.3% 11.0% 11.7% 10.0% 3.7% 6.4% 5.9% 0.0% 3.2% Early Morning Late Morning Early Afternoon Late Afternoon Average

On-time Late Early

During the ride check transit operators within Placer County participated in an event called “Spare the Air Day,” an event which occurs when the air quality reaches an Air Quality Index of 150 or higher. During this event, Roseville along with other Placer County operators provided free rides to help reduce the number of vehicles on the road emitting air pollutants. Given the often “higher” volumes of ridership relative to this “free-ride” event, challenges in keeping with the published schedule may occur. With respect to this ride check, we found Roseville Transit to operate quite well.

Exhibit A.3.2 illustrates on-time performance by route and by day-part. To assist with data review, some cells were shaded green or red to highlight excellent or poor performance. Routes which excelled in performance and met or exceeded the on-time performance standard are shaded green. As evident from the chart, the majority of routes were on-time during the early morning, which is also one of the least productive day-parts (see Boarding and Alighting Section).

Route M had the best on-time performance compared with other Roseville Transit routes, exceeding the 90-percent on-time performance standard across all day-parts. As illustrated in the exhibit, Route M achieved 100-percent on-time performance during early morning, late morning, and late afternoon trips. This is exceptional given the volume and average stop activity experienced on this route exceeded the system boarding and alighting averages across all day- parts (see Exhibits A.3.6 and A.3.7 in the Boarding and Alighting Section).

As noted above, some cells were shaded red to identify routes with problematic performances or difficulties in meeting the published schedule through excessive late or early departures or arrivals. Routes A, G, and S consistently ran “hot” throughout the service day. This may indicate drivers are not running by the published schedule or these routes need a schedule adjustment.

The highest system averages of early departures or arrivals occurred during the late morning and late afternoon day-parts. In reviewing ride check data, we found the majority of these trips

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 142

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

arrived early to the last time point of the trip. As mentioned earlier in this discussion, early arrivals are highly problematic when they lead to early departures. Although drivers may arrive early to any given stop, they should not depart from the stop until the scheduled time point. Early arrivals are also an indication the route schedule may need to be adjusted to eliminate time from the schedule. We suggest the City monitor routes which continually arrive or depart early to their published time points to identify where the schedule needs to be tweaked to prevent this problem.

Route D had the greatest number of late departures than any other route. Late departures occurred on 50 percent of trips during the early afternoon. Based on ride check data, Route D experienced higher boarding and alighting averages per trip during this day-part. This suggests Route D operating times may need to be revised to account for higher volumes experienced during midday trips.

Exhibit A.3.3 showcases on-time performance by trip segment. Shaded cells in Exhibit A.3.3 represent combined weekday and Saturday service data. Routes R and S do not provide service on Saturday.

Overall on-time performance was highest during the beginning of each trip gradually decreasing in reliability as the trip approached its end. As illustrated in Exhibit A.3.4, weekday trip segment trends are similar to overall trends presented in Exhibit A.3.3. Early and late departures and arrivals dramatically increased at the end trip segment, with more than 24 percent of trips departing or arriving early. Late trips were common during the beginning of each trip, decreasing by the end of each trip. Overall, the City should address the ongoing on-time performance issues occurring across all day-parts, especially towards the end of several trips. As noted above, poor on-time performance not only impacts the City’s transit service, but it can have regional impact given a majority of these routes provide connection to other regional services (i.e., Sacramento RT, Amtrak, and Placer County Transit).

Please note Route S in the beginning of the trip does not sum to 100 due to missed time points.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 143

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.3.2 Overall On-Time Performance by Route and Day-Part

Day Part Route Early Morning Late Morning Early Afternoon Late Afternoon On-time Late Early On-time Late Early On-time Late Early On-time Late Early Route A 66.7% 0.0% 31.0% 69.4% 0.0% 19.4% 75.0% 0.0% 25.0% 69.7% 3.0% 27.3% Route B 92.9% 0.0% 4.8% 97.2% 0.0% 2.8% 83.3% 8.3% 2.8% 83.3% 13.3% 3.3% Route C 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 87.5% 12.5% 0.0% 87.5% 0.0% 12.5% 87.5% 12.5% 0.0% Route D 90.9% 9.1% 0.0% 83.3% 0.0% 16.7% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 83.3% 8.3% 8.3% Route G 70.0% 0.0% 30.0% 83.3% 8.3% 8.3% 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% 50.0% 12.5% 37.5% Route I 94.1% 5.9% 0.0% 78.6% 21.4% 0.0% 69.2% 30.8% 0.0% 92.3% 7.7% 0.0% Route L 90.0% 0.0% 10.0% 73.3% 0.0% 26.7% 86.7% 13.3% 0.0% 90.0% 10.0% 0.0% Route M 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 93.3% 0.0% 6.7% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Route R 68.8% 31.3% 0.0% ------81.3% 0.0% 18.8% Route S 66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 62.5% 0.0% 37.5% 66.7% 0.0% 33.3% 75.0% 0.0% 25.0% Average 84.0% 4.6% 10.9% 81.7% 4.7% 12.4% 73.5% 14.2% 11.7% 81.2% 6.7% 12.0%

Exhibit A.3.3 Overall On-Time Performance by Route and Trip Segment

Total Trip Segment Route Beginning Middle End On-time Late Early On-time Late Early On-time Late Early Route A 73.4% 5.2% 10.1% 50.9% 2.1% 30.4% 47.6% 0.0% 30.5% Route B 96.9% 3.1% 0.0% 75.9% 9.6% 12.6% 85.7% 1.6% 11.7% Route C 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 93.8% 0.0% 6.3% 87.5% 12.5% 0.0% Route D 87.5% 12.5% 0.0% 83.9% 12.2% 3.9% 79.2% 12.5% 8.3% Route G 89.6% 10.4% 0.0% 80.8% 6.3% 12.9% 12.5% 0.0% 87.5% Route I 97.9% 2.1% 0.0% 80.4% 19.6% 0.0% 67.0% 6.9% 26.0% Route L 81.9% 11.5% 6.7% 90.1% 0.0% 9.9% 67.7% 0.0% 32.3% Route M 95.8% 0.0% 4.2% 91.7% 0.0% 8.3% 95.8% 0.0% 4.2% Route R 75.0% 25.0% 0.0% 68.8% 12.5% 18.8% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% Route S 75.0% 0.0% 0.0% 85.4% 0.0% 14.6% 12.5% 0.0% 87.5% Average 87.3% 7.0% 2.1% 80.2% 6.2% 11.8% 65.6% 3.4% 28.8%

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGEE 144

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.3.4 Weekday On-time Performance by Trip Segment

100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Beginning Middle Late

On-time Late Early

As illustrated in Exhibit A.3.5, Routes A, G, and S had more early arrivals than other Roseville Transit routes. Again, running “hot” is problematic. Considering the potential impact poor on- time performance might play on regional connectivity, we suggest the City include drivers in the discussion of traffic patterns and trip segment performance on routes which yield higher incidences of late or early departures or arrivals. Driver input will provide insightful feedback regarding actual travel demand and activity patterns based on their own first-hand experience.

As discussed above, on-time performance is critical to the efficient provision of public transit. Improving on-time performance should be a top priority for Roseville Transit.

Exhibit A.3.5 Overall On-Time Performance by Route System Performance Route On-time Late Early Route A 70.1% 0.7% 25.9% Route B 89.6% 4.9% 3.5% Route C 91.7% 5.6% 2.8% Route D 79.1% 14.0% 7.0% Route G 65.8% 10.5% 23.7% Route I 84.2% 15.8% 0.0% Route L 85.0% 5.0% 10.0% Route M 98.3% 0.0% 1.7% Route R 75.0% 15.6% 9.4% Route S 66.7% 0.0% 33.3% Average 80.5% 7.2% 11.7%

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 145

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

BOARDING AND ALIGHTING ANALYSIS This section discusses overall fixed-route boarding and alighting trends on Roseville Transit’s ten routes (Routes A, B, C, D, G, I, L, M, R, and S). Boarding and alighting data collected from the ride check were recorded on the same trip sheet as on-time performance data. Data were then imported into Microsoft Excel and segregated by route, stop, and day-part. Note all exhibit data reflect combined boardings and alightings of weekday and Saturday service.

Boarding by Day-Part Evaluating a system by day-part is critical to assessing existing ridership trends not apparent through use of traditional performance measures. This snapshot of productivity (i.e., boardings and alightings) provides valuable insight for potential service changes and recommendations (i.e., elimination of trip segments, addition of route segments, or stops).

Boarding and alighting data were collected across a representative sample of weekday and Saturday service. Bear in mind, accuracy of data may be influenced by external factors (i.e., “Spare the Air Day”, other promotional events, etc.) occurring during the ride check, potentially impacting or skewing results and trends.

As defined in the previous section (On-time Performance), route analysis will be divided into four separate day-parts (early morning, late morning, early afternoon, and late afternoon). To more accurately assess productivity by time of day, boarding averages were derived from total boardings and number of trips during the specified day-part. This approach shows the average boardings per trip per day-part, versus to total boardings which are skewed by the number of trips offered.

The aggregate of boarding averages by day-part is visually represented in Exhibit A.3.6 below. The exhibit illustrates a trend which peaks in the late morning and trails off in the late afternoon. As illustrated by the line graph below, late morning trips averaged 6.2 boardings per trip. This may be due to higher number of patrons utilizing the service for midday activities during off-peak hours. This may also indicate demand exists to increase service offerings and/or frequency during this day-part.

Boarding averages dropped during the late afternoon. This may be in large part due to fewer trips operating during the late afternoon hours. Given Roseville Transit operates no later than 6:33 p.m. on weekdays and Placer County Transit provides service until 9:00 p.m., service hour extension for the weekdays should be explored to coordinate with Placer County Transit’s fixed- route schedule. Service hour extension may increase ridership and connectivity through providing patrons with more mobility options for evening travel needs.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 146

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.3.6 System Boarding Averages by Day-Part

7.0

6.0 6.2 6.0

5.0

4.6

4.0 3.8

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. 9:31 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 12:31 p.m. to 3:30 p.m 3:31 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Presented in Exhibit A.3.7 are average boardings by day-part and route. As illustrated below, Route B had the second-highest boarding average (13 boardings per trip) compared to all other Roseville Transit route. Given Route B offers service to Roseville’s four major transfer points (i.e., Civic Center, Louis/Orlando, Sierra Gardens, and Galleria) riders are more likely to patronize this route to connect with other regional services.

The highest boarding activity occurred on Route R. Boarding averages presented in Exhibit A.3.7 may be slightly skewed given this route provides fewer trips (i.e., four trips) throughout the service day compared to others. Route R provides service between the Louis/Orlando transfer point and PRIDE Industries. Overall this route yielded 40 boardings during the entire ride check. Note Route R only operates during the early morning and late morning day parts, with limited stops and connections to other Roseville Transit routes.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 147

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.3.7 Route Boarding Averages by Day-Part Boarding Averages by Day Part Early Morning Late Morning Early Afternoon Late afternoon 6:00 a.m. to 9:31 a.m. to 12:31 p.m. to 3:31 p.m. to Route Route 9:30 a.m. 12:30 p.m. 3:30 p.m 7:00 p.m. Average Route A 9.3 8.9 11.1 5.7 8.8 Route B 7.8 12.2 13.9 2.9 9.2 Route C 2.4 7.8 2.4 5.3 4.5 Route D 2.2 4.2 6.7 3.3 4.1 Route G 1.6 2.0 1.5 1.3 1.6 Route I 2.3 5.7 3.2 1.5 3.2 Route L 2.7 6.5 7.0 5.3 5.4 Route M 7.8 8.5 8.2 7.0 7.9 Route R 11.0 - - 8.5 9.8 Route S 3.5 1.5 2.0 1.5 2.1 Day-Part Average 4.6 6.2 6.0 3.8 5.1

Alighting by Day-Part Similar to the system boarding average trend, the service experienced a gradual increase in system alighting activity between late morning and early afternoon day-parts, dropping to about four alightings per trip during the late afternoon day-part (Exhibit A.3.8). As presented in the boarding average discussion, the City should consider extending its hours to coordinate with Placer County Transit services, thereby reintroducing Roseville Transit as an evening transportation option and increasing ridership on select routes. Furthermore, given that alighting patterns as well as boarding patterns (Exhibit A.3.7) reveal low ridership during peak- hour trips, extending the hours of operation may attract a share of commuters to use the service for their daily home to work transport.

Based on ride check data, Routes G, I, and S produced the lowest number of boardings and alightings than all other route. Further review of route time tables and stop locations will be necessary to identify and address shortcomings (i.e., low ridership) presented during the ride check engagement. Route S, for instance is a service which provides connections between the Galleria Mall transfer point and the Santucci Justice Center. Ride check data shows higher boardings in the morning than any other day-part, with less than two boardings occurring during the late morning to the late afternoon. This is substantially low for fixed-route service. We recommend the City introduce additional stops to increase trip generation on this route.

Route G, which interlines with Route C, has the lowest productivity (1.6 alightings per route) in the Roseville Transit system. This is the only route which provides service to southwestern Roseville. Collectively, the route yielded fewer than 100 boardings and alightings throughout the ride check. We suggest the City evaluate the current schedule and frequencies provided on this route to determine the demand for service to this part of the community.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 148

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.3.8 System Alighting Averages by Day-Part

6.0 5.6

5.5 5.0

4.7

4.0

3.8

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. 9:31 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 12:31 p.m. to 3:30 p.m 3:31 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Exhibit A.3.9 presents the average alighting by day-part and route. Based on alighting average alone, Route R had the highest alighting average (12 alightings per trip) compared to other Roseville Transit routes. As previously mentioned, Route R has the fewest number of trips offered attributing to the lower alighting count recorded for the route.

Routes A and B were the next highest in alighting activity, being considerably more productive during the late morning and early afternoon than any other day part. Typically higher boarding activity occurs during the early morning, while higher alighting activity occurs during the late afternoon. However, this trend is not reflected in Roseville Transit’s system boarding or alighting patterns. Instead trends at the individual route level reveal most routes, namely Routes A, B, C, D, G, I, and L had higher alighting averages during the late morning and early afternoon (off-peak hours) than on any other day-part, with the exception of Routes C, L, M, R, and S, which experienced high alighting averages during other day-parts.

The variance in day-part and route-specific trends may be the result of other external factors (i.e., employment status, trip purpose, seasonal factors, etc.) influencing transit use patterns. Based on data collected from the onboard survey large portion of Roseville Transit riders are between the ages of 17 and 25 and are also full-time students. While the majority of riders

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 149

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

utilize the service for work, the next largest groups of riders patronize Roseville Transit for home-to-school, shopping, and recreational activity. Given a significant number of riders are full-time students and school is the second most popular trip purpose aside from shopping (which is the third-most cited trip purpose), it is not uncommon to see the travel patterns with high off-peak ridership.

Exhibit A.3.9 Route Alighting by Day-Part Alighting Averages by Day Part Early Morning Late Morning Early Afternoon Late afternoon 6:00 a.m. to 9:31 a.m. to 12:31 p.m. to 3:31 p.m. to Route Route 9:30 a.m. 12:30 p.m. 3:30 p.m 7:00 p.m. Average Route A 8.9 11.0 10.4 5.7 9.0 Route B 6.9 7.8 11.1 2.3 7.0 Route C 1.6 5.0 2.6 5.7 3.7 Route D 1.8 2.7 4.8 2.5 3.0 Route G 1.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.5 Route I 2.3 6.2 3.8 2.0 3.6 Route L 2.3 6.0 6.3 6.0 5.2 Route M 8.0 6.8 8.0 5.6 7.1 Route R 15.5 - - 8.5 12.0 Route S 3.5 1.5 2.0 1.5 2.1 Day-Part Average 4.7 5.5 5.6 3.8 5.0

Route-Segment Analysis The goal of the route-segment analysis is to identify key bus stops and points of significant activity. Boarding and alighting data collected at each published time-point was geocoded using ESRI ArcView Geographic Information System (GIS) software. From there, maps were generated to illustrate boarding and alighting densities. All exhibit data represent the combined total stop activity of weekday and Saturday data. Additional discussion regarding Saturday service activity will be included with discussion of each route.

Route A Boarding and Alighting Counts Local Route A operates clockwise on a loop, running on a north-south axis along Interstate 80. The service operates Monday through Friday, 6:03 a.m. to 6:33 p.m., and Saturday, 8:03 a.m. to 5:03 p.m.

Trips originate and terminate at the Louis/Orlando transfer point with the exception for the last weekday trip, which terminates at the Galleria transfer point. The weekday service runs every 30 minutes, while the Saturday service runs every 60 minutes with the exception of the last weekday trip which has a total run-time of 23 minutes. Local Route A provides connections with Placer County Transit (at the Galleria Mall and Louis/Orlando transfer points) and Sacramento

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 150

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Regional Transit (at Louis/Orlando). Connections to Roseville’s Commuter Service are provided at the Galleria, Civic Center, Louis/Orlando, and Sierra Gardens transfer points.

As illustrated in Exhibit A.3.10, the highest level of activity (194 boardings and alightings) occurred during the early afternoon, between 12:31 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. Ride check data for Route A mimics system trends. The highest boarding average (11.1 boardings per trip) occurred during the early afternoon, while the highest alighting (11.0 alightings per trip) occurred between 9:31 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. Compared with other routes, Route A ranks second in boarding and alighting activity (Exhibit A.3.7). Based on ride check data the least productive day-part appeared to be the late afternoon (3:31 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.) with about six average boardings and alightings throughout the ride check.

Exhibit A.3.10 Route A Activity by Day-Part Boarding Alighting Avg Boarding Avg Alighting Trips Route A 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. 84 80 9.3 8.9 9 9:31 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 80 99 8.9 11.0 9 12:31 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. 100 94 11.1 10.4 9 3:31 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 43 40 6.1 5.7 7

Although Saturday stop activity trend mimics the weekday service trend (i.e., high boarding and alighting during the late morning and early afternoon day-parts) there is slight differentiation as the Saturday service had a higher average during late morning day-part. Altogether, Route A’s alignment plays a significant role in Roseville Transit’s route network producing the second highest stop activity than other Roseville Transit route.

Exhibit A.3.11 Route A Saturday Activity by Day-Part Route A B A Trips 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. 16 17 2 9:31 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 41 39 3 12:31 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. 31 32 3 3:31 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 0 0 1

The most productive Route A stops are listed below in Exhibit A.3.12. As presented in the table, the first four most productive stops are transfer points connecting Roseville Transit with Placer County Transit and Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT). Based on this finding, it would be beneficial for the City to invest in amenity or infrastructure improvements at the Louis/Orlando, Civic Center, and Sierra Gardens transfer points. Onsite observations further support this recommendation. Although each transfer point is well-equipped with bus shelter, benches, and trash receptacles, we believe enhancement opportunities exist in providing more safety and comfort (i.e., from external elements – weather) for Roseville Transit patrons.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 151

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

For example, the Louis/Orlando Transfer Point is currently located behind a gas station, next to a local business and parking lot. Given it is the second-most frequented stop and one of the main regional connecting points with SacRT and Placer County Transit, the City should consider moving the stop to a much safer location along with increasing safety through better lighting and ventilated bus shelters. The Civic Center transfer point had similar concerns with the design of the shelter. Given the sometimes extreme heat and cold weather temperatures, new bus shelters may be necessary to provide better ventilation and minimize the extreme heat or cold experienced at these stops.

Exhibit A.3.12 Route A Highest Boarding Stops Exhibit A.3.13 Route A Highest Alighting Stops Rank Stop Boardings Rank Stop Alightings Route A Route A 1 Galleria (Depart) 63 1 Galleria (Arrive) 78 2 Louis/Orlando (Depart) 53 2 Civic Center 50 3 Civic Center 36 3 Louis/Orlando (Arrive) 47 4 Sierra Gardens 34 4 Sierra Gardens 39 5 Cirby at Sunrise 30 5 N. Sunrise at E. Roseville Pkwy 12 5 Cirby before Cirby Hills 12

The stops with the greatest alighting activity are shown in Exhibit A.3.13. The top-ranking stop was the Galleria Mall transfer point, a key transfer point to Placer Commuter Express, Placer County Transit, and other Roseville Transit routes (i.e., Routes A, B, M, and S). The alighting order slightly differs from the order of boardings ranked in Exhibit A.3.12 with the Civic Center stop ranked second in alighting instead of third. Onboard survey data further supports this finding, as the Galleria Mall was the highest boarding origin and alighting destination, followed by Louis/Orlando, Civic Center, and Sierra Gardens.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 152

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.3.14 Route A Boardings and Alightings

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 153

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Route B Boarding and Alighting Counts Local Route B operates on the same alignment as Local Route A. However, it features stops at different locations than Route A. The service runs in the opposite direction alongside Interstate 80 and operates Monday through Friday, 6:13 a.m. to 6:13 p.m.; and Saturday, 8:43 a.m. to 4:43 p.m.

All trips originate and terminate at the Roseville Civic Center, running on 60-minute headways. Weekday services run every 30 minutes, while Saturday services run every 60 minutes. Local Route B provides connections to Placer County Transit (at the Galleria Mall and Louis/Orlando transfer points) and Sacramento Regional Transit (at Louis/Orlando). Connections to Roseville Transit's Commuter Service are provided at the Galleria, Civic Center, Louis/Orlando, and Sierra Gardens transfer points.

Similar to Route A, Route B experienced the greatest activity during the late afternoon and early morning trips. Specifically, higher stop activity was recorded for the 10:13 a.m., 10:43 a.m., 11:13 a.m., 11:43 a.m., 1:43 p.m., 2:13 p.m., 2:43 p.m., and 3:13 p.m. trips during the ride check engagement further supporting this finding. Peak hour trips (early morning and late afternoon) were the least productive day-parts, suggesting the service is not used primarily as a commuter service. High incidence of use during off-peak hours may indicate a need to enhance services (i.e., increase frequency) during these day-parts. Stop activity per trip significantly dropped after 3:30 p.m. Due to the low ridership during the early morning and late afternoon we suggest the City review the current service offerings during peak hours to ensure sufficient service which meet the needs of the commuter are provided.

Based on onboard survey data, the second-highest noted occupational status was full-time employment. Given the majority of riders noted being employed full-time, the question remains if whether commuters follow a different work schedule or use other transit services for their commuting needs. Assuming a typical work day is between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., we could assume the high incidence of riders during off-peak hours may be due to riders utilizing the Roseville Commuter Service for their home-to-work travel. We recommend the City conduct a commuter survey to acquire input on the needs of the commuter.

Exhibit A.3.15 Route B Total Activity by Day-Part Route B Boarding Alighting Avg Boarding Avg Alighting Trips 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. 62 55 7.8 6.9 8 9:31 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 110 70 12.2 7.8 9 12:31 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. 125 100 13.9 11.1 9 3:31 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 23 18 2.9 2.3 8

Saturday service grossed the highest boardings during the early afternoon (12:31 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.) followed by the late afternoon. This trend is similar to overall activity on this route, maintaining the belief that riders are more likely to use the service for other activities aside

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 154

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

from work or full-time workers follow a different work schedule. With either scenario, an extension of service hours could potentially attract a larger share of the trips made throughout the city. Exhibit A.3.16 Route B Saturday Activity by Day-Part Route B B A Trips 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. 5 5 1 9:31 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 26 20 3 12:31 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. 47 46 3 3:31 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 0 0 2

The highest boardings occurred at similar day-parts and bus stops as Route A. Given the top- ranked stop was Civic Center and top-ranked alighting stop was the Galleria Mall (Exhibits A.3.17 and A.3.18), we find that riders are more likely to board at the beginning of a trip and alight at the end of a trip.

Based on Onboard Survey data, 28.8 percent of riders noted transferring from another route or service to access Roseville Transit. This supports the significance of network connectivity within the region. Given the Civic Center transfer point connects to Amtrak, Roseville Commuter Service, and Placer County Transit fixed-route services the City should make schedule coordination a priority in order to create seamless connectivity between services.

Exhibit A.3.17 Route B Highest Boarding Stops Exhibit A.3.18 Route B Highest Alighting Stops Rank Stop Boardings Rank Stop Alightings Route B Route B 1 Civic Center (Depart) 55 1 Galleria (Arrive) 49 2 Louis/Orlando (Depart) 40 2 Civic Center (Arrive) 37 3 Galleria (Depart) 38 3 Louis/Orlando (Leave) 26 4 Galleria (Arrive) 28 4 Sunrise at Cirby 19 5 Sierra Gardens (Depart) 27 5 Sierra Gardens (Leave) 16

Unlike boarding activity results which ranked the Civic Center as the top stop for boardings, the greatest alightings occurred at the Galleria Mall transfer point. Based on the published schedule, a 10-minute layover was built in at the Galleria Mall to accommodate transfers to other service providers. Based on transfer analysis observations, the majority of transfers occurred between Placer County Transit and Roseville Transit. Customers transferring between both service providers were often seen rushing from PCT routes to get to Roseville Transit and vice versa (see Section 1.4 - Transfer Analysis). More effective service coordination through modifications to the operating schedule or adjustments to layover times may be necessary to allocate more time for patrons to make these connections.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 155

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.3.19 Route B Boardings and Alighting

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 156

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Route C Boarding and Alighting Counts Local Route C runs on a circular pattern, serving the portion of the city west of Interstate 80. Service operates Monday through Friday, 6:45 a.m. to 5:20 p.m., and Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:05 p.m. on 35-minute headways. Northbound service operates Monday through Friday, 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.; and Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on 60-minute headways.

All trips originate at Sierra Gardens transfer point and terminate at Douglas/ Rocky Ridge. The Local Route C service provides connections with the Roseville Transit Commuter Service at the Sierra Gardens transfer point.

Route C’s boarding and alighting trends differed from overall system trends as the busiest day- parts were in the late afternoon as well as in the late morning day-part. As illustrated by Exhibit A.3.20, the highest boarding average was about eight boardings per trip, while the highest alighting average was nearly six alightings per trip occurring during the late afternoon. The Saturday ridership data significantly impacted the total Route C trend, with high boarding and alighting activity occurring during the last trip of the day or late afternoon day-part. This high incidence of ridership during the late afternoon increased the average stop activity during this day-part by 11 boardings and 11 alightings, compared to weekday productivity which experienced a significant drop in ridership past 3:30 p.m.

Based on system data (Exhibits A.3.6 and A.3.7), the average boarding (4.5 boardings per trip) and alighting (3.7 alightings per trip) on Route C were lower slightly than the system averages (5.5 boardings and 5.3 alightings per trip) by day-part. Note that Routes C and G interline, meaning Route C becomes Route G upon its arrival at the Douglas at Rocky Ridge stop. Despite the continuous connection between these two services, Route G continues to yield the lowest average in boardings and alightings compared to any other Roseville Transit route. This suggests most riders utilizing Route C are more inclined to alight during the Route C service than to continue on the Route G alignment.

Exhibit A.3.20 Route C Total Activity by Day-Part

Route C Boarding Alighting Avg Boarding Avg Alighting Trips

6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. 12 8 2.4 1.6 5

9:31 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 31 20 7.8 5.0 4

12:31 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. 12 13 2.4 2.6 5

3:31 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 16 17 5.3 5.7 3

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 157

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.3.21 Route C Saturday Activity by Day-Part Route C B A Trips 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. 1 0 2 9:31 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 13 9 2 12:31 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. 3 0 2 3:31 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 11 11 1

Exhibits A.3.22 and A.3.23 illustrate the highest boarding and alighting stops on Route C. Based on ride check data the majority of riders boarded Roseville Transit at the Sierra Gardens transfer point and alighted at South Cirby past Piedmont. Stops such as Sunrise at Cirby, Douglas at Rocky Ridge, Sunrise at Cirby, and Cirby at Parkview produced higher boardings and alightings than the rest of the stops which averaged 0.65 boardings and 0.45 alightings.

Exhibit A.3.22 Route C Highest Boarding Stops Exhibit A.3.23 Route C Highest Alighting Stops

Rank Stop Boardings Rank Stop Alightings Route C Route C 1 Sierra Gardens (Depart) 15 1 S. Cirby past Piedmont (Depart) 15 2 Douglas before Strauch 9 2 Sunrise at Cirby (Depart) 13 3 Sunrise at Cirby (Depart) 9 3 Douglas at Rocky Ridge 11 4 Douglas at Rocky Ridge (Arrive) 5 4 Rocky Ridge at Meadowlark 5 5 Cirby at Parkview 4 5 Sunrise before Coloma 3 5 Cirby at Parkview 3 5 Rocky Ridge before Hackamore 3

In comparing the boarding activity at the stop level with alighting activity, major trip generators and travel patterns can be identified. Based on ride check data and the transit schedule, the majority of riders boarded at the beginning of each trip (i.e., at Sierra Gardens and Douglas before Strauch), with a higher number of riders alighting during the middle of the trip at South Cirby past Piedmont and Sunrise at Cirby. This suggests the demand exists for destinations located at the southern border of Roseville.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 158

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.3.24 Route C Boardings and Alightings

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 159

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Route D Boarding and Alighting Counts Local Route D operates on an east-west loop with trips originating and terminating at the Roseville Civic Center, with the exception of the first weekday and Saturday trips, which originate at Foothills/Junction. Service operates Monday through Friday, 6:07 a.m. to 6:24 p.m., and Saturdays, 8:07 a.m. to 4:24 p.m.

Service has a trip length of 30 minutes and operates on60-minute headways, except for the first trip of each service day (weekday and Saturday), which have a trip duration of 17 minutes and does not include the first five regularly scheduled stops. Local Route D provides connections to Roseville Transit’s Commuter Service as well as other Roseville Transit routes at the Civic Center transfer point.

Route D stop activity follows overall system trends, with the greatest stop activity occurring during the late morning and early afternoon day-parts. As illustrated in Exhibit A.3.25, the highest boarding and alighting averages occurred during the early afternoon day-part.

Demographic analysis (Section 1.1) shows Route D’s service area is predominantly residential with higher concentrations of seniors, persons with disabilities, and individuals with limited or no access to personal vehicles. Given the high concentration of these traditionally ride- dependent populations, it can be assumed a need exists for reliable transportation alternatives. However, ride check data concludes, stop activity on Route D remains lower than system averages for boardings and alightings.

As illustrated in Exhibit A.3.25, Route D experienced more boardings during all day-parts than alightings. This may indicate that a majority of riders boarding Route D may have alighted when the route changed to another Roseville Transit route. Note Route D interlines with Routes L and I. Ride check data reveals, higher alightings occurred on almost all day-parts on Route I. This may suggest riders are staying on board throughout the two route changes in order to get to their final destination.

Exhibit A.3.25 Route D Total Activity by Day-Part Route D Boarding Alighting Avg Boarding Avg Alighting Trips 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. 13 11 2.2 1.8 6 9:31 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 25 16 4.2 2.7 6 12:31 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. 40 29 6.7 4.8 6 3:31 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 13 10 3.3 2.5 4

In reviewing Saturday data, the trend remains consistent with total activity by day-part (Exhibit A.3.26). Once again, the late morning and early afternoon had the greatest number of boardings and alightings than any other day-part. The off-peak transit use may reflect a number of factors such as riders possessing an atypical work schedule (i.e., evening work schedule),

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 160

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

coordination with other transit services, and/or a reflection of seasonal events such as “Spare the Air Day,” which may entice patrons to utilize the “free” air conditioned service during midday hours when temperatures are at their highest.

Exhibit A.3.26 Route D Saturday Activity by Day-Part Route D B A Trips 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. 2 1 2 9:31 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 10 8 3 12:31 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. 21 18 3 3:31 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 1 0 1

As presented in Exhibits A.3.27 and A.3.28, the Civic Center stop had significantly higher boardings and alightings than other Route D stops. As mentioned above, the number of boardings and alightings were uneven in total. This may indicate a higher number of transfers are taking place without riders actually alighting from the bus. Furthermore, it appears patrons were more likely to board during the beginning of each trip and alight towards the middle of the trip. This provides reason to believe trip purposes were mostly taken to destinations such as Rite Aid and Save Mart, to Woodcreek High School, and to the Junction transfer point where connections to Routes I and M were available.

Exhibit A.3.27 Route D Boardings Exhibit A.3.28 Route D Alighting Stops

Rank Stop Boardings Rank Stop Alightings Route D Route D 1 Civic Center (Depart) 33 1 Civic Center (Arrive) 16 2 Junction (Depart) 13 3 McAnally at Foothills 12 2 Main before Foothills 8 4 Main at Lomitas 9 3 Junction (Depart) 7 5 Foothills at Junction (Depart) 5 4 Woodcreek Oaks at McAnally 6 5 Junction at Foothills 5 4 McAnally at Foothills 6 4 McAnally before Country Club 6

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 161

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.3.29 Route D Boardings and Alightings

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 162

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Route G Boarding and Alighting Counts Local Route G operates on an east-west circular loop with trips originating at Douglas/Rocky Ridge and terminating at Sierra Gardens with the exception of the first weekday and Saturday trips, which originate at Sierra College Blvd/Douglas. Route G services also interline with Local Route C at Douglas/Rocky Ridge and the Sierra Gardens transfer point. Service operates Monday through Friday, 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and Saturdays, 7:45 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.

Trips operate on 75-minute headways with a trip duration of 40 minutes, except for the first trip of each service day (weekday and Saturday), which have a trip duration of 15 minutes, thus eliminating the first nine scheduled stops. Local Route G provides connections to Roseville Transit Commuter Service at the Sierra Gardens transfer point.

As shown during the ride check engagement, riders were more inclined to board during the early morning (6:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m.) and late morning (9:31 a.m. and 12:30 p.m.) and alight during the late morning and early afternoon (12:31 p.m. and 3:30 p.m.). In spite of the route following a similar trend, compared to other Roseville Transit routes its ridership count was fairly low.

Exhibit A.3.6 (presented earlier in this section) reveals Route G’s stop activity (1.6 boardings per trip and 2.5 alightings per trip) was far less than the system average for boardings and alightings. Given the low ridership on this route, we recommend the City consider eliminating unproductive stops from the existing alignment or redesigning the route, thereby reducing Vehicle Service Hours from the current route.

Exhibit A.3.30 Route G Activity by Day-Part Boarding Alighting Avg Boarding Avg Alighting Trips Route G 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. 8 5 1.6 1.0 5 9:31 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 12 24 2.0 4.0 6 12:31 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. 6 12 1.5 3.0 4 3:31 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 4 6 1.3 2.0 3

Saturday service yielded little to no service during the traditional commuting day-parts (Between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., and 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.). Similar to weekday and total stop activity trends, the service had higher alightings than boardings across all day-parts. This may indicate more patrons board when the route changes to Route C and alight when it follows the Route G alignment.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 163

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.3.31 Route G Saturday Activity by Day-Part Route G B A Trips 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. 0 0 2 9:31 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 6 10 3 12:31 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. 3 5 2 3:31 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 1 1 1

Presented below are the most productive stops on Route G. Based on ride check data, most riders board the route near the end of the trip, with the exception of the Douglas at Rocky Ridge stop. Alightings occurred at both the beginning and end of the trip. The alignment travels past many business and residential developments. Given the land use of the area, we can assume the primary trip purpose(s) are for accessing services (i.e., medical, legal, and banking).

It’s interesting to note during ride check, patrons expressed their frustration with Route G’s current alignment. Riders expressed a preference for travel to other potential trip generators (i.e., Wal-Mart located on Lead Hill Blvd.) not located on the current alignment. This may indicate a potential demand redesign the route to accommodate different trip requests. We recommend the City consider redesigning the route to address patron concerns as well as enhance service efficiency.

Exhibit A.3.32 Route G Boarding Stops Exhibit A.3.33 Route G Alighting Stops

Rank Stop Boardings Rank Stop Alightings Route G Route G 1 Eureka at Deer Valley Apts 6 1 N. Sunrise past Douglas 10 2 Douglas past Eureka 5 2 Sierra Gardens (Arrive) 7 3 Eureka at Sierra College Blvd 4 3 Sierra College Blvd at Eureka 6 3 Sierra College at Douglas (Arrive) 4 4 Sierra College Blvd at Douglas (Arrive) 5 3 Douglas at Rocky Ridge (Depart) 4 5 Eureka at Professional 4

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 164

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.3.34 Route G Boardings and Alightings

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 165

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Route I Boarding and Alighting Counts Local Route I provides intercity service within Roseville, operating on an east-west “figure-8” loop with trips originating and terminating at the Roseville Civic Center, with the exception of the last trip of each service day, which terminates at the Junction transfer point. Service operates Monday through Friday, 6:24 a.m. to 6:36 p.m., and Saturday, 8:24 a.m. to 4:36 p.m. Local Route I’s services interline with Local Route D, at the Roseville Civic Center.

Trips operate on 30-minute headways every 60 minutes, with the exception for the last trip of each service day (weekday and Saturday), which operate on 12-minute headways, thus eliminating the last eight scheduled stops. Local Route I provides connections to Roseville Transit’s Commuter Service at the Roseville Civic Center.

The most productive day-parts were late morning and early afternoon (Exhibit A.3.35). As mentioned in discussion of other Roseville Transit routes, the high frequency of boardings and alightings may be due to riders with atypical work schedules (i.e., schedules not following the traditional 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. workday) or riders utilizing the service for trip purposes unrelated to employment (i.e., shopping, school, etc.). Although speculative, the concern with riders working on an atypical work schedule (service work and night jobs), is the lack of service offerings provided past 6:30 p.m. This suggests riders who would need to use the service to work evening shifts must find other travel alternatives to complete their return home.

As illustrated in Route I, the least productive day-part was the late afternoon. As we’ve seen with other routes, the low productivity level during late afternoon may be the result of service hours ending at 6:00 p.m. or the services or businesses located in this area closing early, minimizing the need for service to this area past 3:30 p.m.

Keep in mind, Route I interlines with Routes D and L. This may cause of higher alightings than boardings across all day-parts.

Exhibit A.3.35 Route I Activity by Day-Part Boarding Alighting Avg Boarding Avg Alighting Trips Route I 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. 14 14 2.3 2.3 6 9:31 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 34 37 5.7 6.2 6 12:31 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. 19 23 3.2 3.8 6 3:31 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 6 8 1.5 2.0 4

Saturday data further confirms the existing demand of service during off-peak hours. Given Saturday service does not begin till 8:24 a.m. and ends at 4:36 p.m. this may indicate why there were fewer riders during these the early morning and late afternoon day-parts.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 166

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.3.36 Route I Saturday Activity by Day-Part Route I B A Trips 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. 0 0 2 9:31 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 16 17 3 12:31 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. 7 11 3 3:31 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 0 0 1

As illustrated in Exhibits A.3.37 and A.3.38, the greatest stop activity occurred at the Civic Center transfer point. Considering that Route I follows a similar alignment as Route D, except it travels in the opposite direction, it makes sense that the most productive stops are similar to Route D’s most patronized stops.

Based on ride check data, the majority of riders boarded the service at the beginning of each trip and alighted when the bus arrives at the Civic Center stop (end of trip). Travel patterns indicate a good portion of riders boarding at the end of the trip would alight at the beginning of the next trip.

Exhibit A.3.37 Route I Boarding Stops Exhibit A.3.38 Route I Alighting Stops

Rank Stop Boardings Rank Stop Alightings Route I Route I 1 Civic Center (Depart) 17 1 Civic Center (Arrive) 18 2 Main at Foothills (Depart) 9 2 Main before N. Grant 8 3 Junction at Washington 9 3 Foothills at Junction (Depart) 6 4 Junction (Depart) 5 3 McAnally at Foothills 6 5 Woodcreek Oaks at McAnally 3 3 Junction (Depart) 6

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 167

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.3.39 Route I Boardings and Alightings

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 168

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Route L Boarding and Alighting Counts Local Route L operates on an east-west axis with trips originating and terminating at the Roseville Civic Center, with the exception of the last Saturday trip, which terminates at Sierra Gardens before Santa Clara. Service operates Monday through Friday, 6:25 a.m. to 6:15 p.m., and Saturdays, 8:25 a.m. to 5:02 p.m.

Trips operate on 60-minute headways with 50 minutes of travel time, except for the last Saturday trip, which has a 37 minute travel time, thus eliminating the last eight scheduled stops. Local Route L provides connections to Roseville Transit’s Commuter Service at the Civic Center and Sierra Gardens transfer points.

The greatest number of boardings and alighting occur during the late morning and early afternoon. Based on ride check data, the average boardings and alightings per trip by day-part were around six per trip, with the exception of the early morning which had less than three boardings and alightings per trip. Overall, Route L had a similar route average as the system boarding and alighting average (5.5 boardings per trip and 5.3 alightings per trip). This suggests route productivity is fairly consistent throughout any given service day.

Exhibit A.3.40 Route L Activity by Day-Part Boarding Alighting Avg Boarding Avg Alighting Trips Route L 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. 16 14 2.7 2.3 6 9:31 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 39 36 6.5 6.0 6 12:31 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. 42 38 7.0 6.3 6 3:31 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 16 18 5.3 6.0 3

Saturday boardings and alightings mimic weekday and total stop activity of Route L. It is interesting to note, that although the service started later on Saturday, it still yielded higher numbers than Routes D and I. Indicating riders are more likely to board or alight on Route L.

Exhibit A.3.41 Route L Saturday Activity by Day-Part

Route L B A Trips

6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. 4 5 2

9:31 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 21 16 3

12:31 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. 24 19 3

3:31 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 4 5 1

As previously noted, Routes D, L, and I interline. All route changes occur when the vehicle reaches the Civic Center stop. In looking at Exhibits A.3.42 and A.3.43, riders were more likely to board and alight at the Civic Center stop. This further supports enhancements to Civic Center

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 169

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

amenities to accommodate the level of productivity occurring at this stop. The second-highest boarded stop was Douglas at Rocky Ridge which is also the fourth highest alighted stop. As presented in the exhibits, the majority of stops overlap as high boarding and alighting.

Exhibit A.3.42 Route L Boarding Stops Exhibit A.3.43 Route L Alighting Stops

Rank Stop Boardings Rank Stop Alightings Route L Route L 1 Civic Center (Depart) 36 1 Civic Center (Arrive) 20 2 Douglas at Rocky Ridge 12 2 Douglas at Eureka 10 3 Sierra Gardens before Sta. Clara (Depart) 8 2 Sierra Gardems before Santa Clara 10 4 Douglas past Eureka 6 3 Douglas at Rocky Ridge 9 5 Harding at Roseville Square 6 3 Harding before Estates 9 5 Harding before Estates 6

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 170

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.3.44 Route L Boardings and Alighting map

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 171

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Route M Boarding and Alighting Activity Route M operates on a southwest-northeast alignment with trips originating and terminating at the Galleria transfer point. The exception to this is the last Saturday trip, which terminates at the Junction transfer point. Line M operates Monday through Friday, 6:35 a.m. to 6:25 p.m., and Saturday, 8:35 a.m. to 5:14 p.m.

Route M operates on 60 minute headways, except for the last Saturday trip, which has a 39 minute runtime, thus eliminating the last nine scheduled stops. Route M provides connections with Placer County Transit and Roseville Transit’s Commuter Bus Service at the Galleria transfer point.

Exhibit A.3.45 shows boarding and alighting on Route M remained above seven per trip, with the exception of low alighting activity during the late afternoon day-part. Overall the route remained consistently high in average boarding and alighting throughout the ride check, compared with other Roseville Transit routes. This reveals Route M as one of the more productive routes.

As revealed through the onboard survey, the top-highest cited employment status was full-time student. Although student ridership may be the result of the proximity of high schools along select routes, we can assume a high portion of Roseville Transit riders may be Sierra College students. Utilizing survey data the top-cited age range of riders was 17 to 25 years, indicating many if not most student riders are potentially of college age.

We recommend the City, in partnership with the Placer County Transit, develop a direct route which links Roseville residents with Sierra College or work to enhance service on Route M so as to provide a seamless link between the Galleria Mall and Sierra College/Lincoln route. Although riders have the option of transferring to other county or regional services via transfer points to reach the College, a direct route may be more effective and efficient in meeting the needs of Roseville residents. However, given jurisdictional boundaries and the cost to develop a new route, it might be more practical to modify Route M’s scheduling to improve connectivity between Placer County Transit and Roseville Transit.

Effective January 31, 2011, the City implemented a new schedule on Route M which eliminates time-points at Pleasant Grove at Foothills and Fairway at Central Park while introduces Pleasant Grove before Highland Pointe as a new time point. Further, almost 10 minutes were divvied up between the remaining stops to reflect the elimination of the time-point. Initially the change required 19 minutes of travel time from the first time-point to the next time-point (fourth stop on the schedule). Based on the revision, travel time between the first two time-points was decreased to 13 minutes. Doing so allows the bus to reach the Junction transfer point nine minutes earlier than the prior schedule enhancing on-time performance and intra-service connectivity. At further benefit is increased driver break time/layover at the Roseville Galleria.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 172

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.3.45 Route M Activity by Day-Part Boardings Alightings Avg Boarding Avg Alighting Trips Route M 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. 31 32 7.8 8.0 4 9:31 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 51 41 8.5 6.8 6 12:31 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. 49 48 8.2 8.0 6 3:31 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 35 28 7.0 5.6 5

Similar to Route M weekday findings, Saturday service noted higher boarding and alighting during midday or off-peak hour trips.

Exhibit A.3.46 Route M Saturday Activity by Day-Part Route M B A Trips 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. 10 10 1 9:31 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 22 22 3 12:31 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. 29 29 3 3:31 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 7 2 2

As noted by the exhibits below, the highest boarding and alighting activity occurred at the Roseville Galleria transfer point, followed by the Junction transfer point. More effective coordination may be necessary to improve connectivity between Roseville Transit and PCT’s Sierra College/Lincoln Route which also stops at the Galleria. Schedule revisions may be necessary to coordinate with class schedules (which end at 11:00 p.m. This change may require additional layover time at the Roseville Galleria.

Exhibit A.3.47 Route M Boarding Stops Exhibit A.3.48 Route M Alighting Stops Rank Stop Boardings Rank Stop Alightings Route M Route M 1 Galleria (Depart) 57 1 Galleria (Arrive) 47 2 Junction (Depart) 22 2 Junction (Depart) 31 2 Pleasant Grove at Woodcreek Oaks 12 3 Pleasant Grove at Foothills 12 2 Pleasant Grove before Foothills 11 4 Fairway at Central Park (Depart) 9 3 Pleasant Grove at Roseville Pkwy 8 5 Pleasant Grove at Roseville Pkwy 7

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 173

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.3.49 Route M Boardings and Alightings

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 174

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Route R Boarding and Alighting Activity Route R provides service during the early morning and late afternoon day-parts. It serves as an “in-town commuter service” to the Louis/Orlando transfer point, where connections can be made with SacRT and Placer County Transit. It operates a limited-stop service running on a north-south axis along Foothills Blvd with trips originating and terminating at the Louis/Orlando transfer point. Service operates Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 8:57 a.m., and 3:53 p.m. to 5:20 p.m. There is no service on Saturday. The weekday service includes two full runs (AM and PM).

The four trips operate on 45-minute headways (with 42-minute trip duration). Route R provides connections with Placer County Transit, Sacramento Regional Transit, and Roseville Transit’s Commuter Bus Service at the Louis/Orlando transfer point. Given only four trips to evaluate, the average boarding and alighting activity was quite high.

Exhibit A.3.50 Route R Activity by Day-Part Boardings Alightings Avg Boarding Avg Alighting Trips Route R 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. 22 31 11.0 15.5 2 9:31 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. - - - - - 12:31 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. - - - - - 3:31 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 17 17 8.5 8.5 2

Exhibits A.3.51 and A.3.52 illustrate the highest boardings and alightings on Route R. This is a route with a very specific market and tailored operating parameters. As presented in the Service Plan chapter, we suggest modifying the route by introducing a stop at the Crocker Oaks Apartments. The proposed route would travel between Pride Industries and Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd transfer point during one morning and one evening trip, then travel to Crocker Oaks Apartments at the most northern stop for each trip thereafter. This should expand the customer base through providing additional service to this Section 8 housing area.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 175

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.3.51 Route R Highest Boarding Stops Exhibit A.3.52 Route R Highest Alighting Stops Rank Stop Boardings Rank Stop Alightings Route R Route R 1 Louis/Orlando (Depart) 10 1 Foothills at PRIDE Industries (Arrive) 14 2 Foothills at PRIDE Industries (Arrive) 6 2 Foothills at Blue Oaks 3 2 Louis/Orlando (Arrive) 6 3 Foothills past McAnally (Depart) 3 2 Foothills at Pasco Scientific 5 4 Foothills at Junction 3 3 Foothills at Blue Oaks 4 5 Louis/Orlando (Arrive) 3

Exhibit A.3.53 Route R Boardings and Alightings

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 176

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Route S Boarding and Alighting Counts Route S operates is a bi-directional route segment providing a direct link between the Roseville Parkway before West Dr. stop (Galleria transfer point) and the Santucci Justice Center. Route S operates Monday through Friday, 7:35 a.m. to 5:25 p.m. No service is provided on weekends.

Trips between the two stops operate variable headways and runtimes. Route S provides connections with Placer County Transit and Roseville Transit’s Commuter Service at Roseville Parkway before West Drive (near the Galleria Mall transfer point). This route is funded in part by the Santucci Justice Center.

As previously noted, Route S provides connections between the Galleria transfer point and Santucci Justice Center. As shown in Exhibit A.3.54, there was higher boarding activity in the morning than any other day-part. Field observations revealed a handful of passengers utilize the service for home-to-work travel to the Santucci Justice Center, while the remainder ride for court-related activities. Given the historically low ridership, we recommend extending the route to include a stop at Thunder Valley Casino. Doing so may stimulate ridership growth. Additional service to Thunder Valley Casino from Santucci Justice Center translates to an additional 2.6 miles to Vehicle Service Miles, and six minutes running time. By extending service to Thunder Valley Casino, there is potential for increasing ridership through transfers between Lincoln Transit and Placer County Transit’s Sierra College/Lincoln Route.

Exhibit A.3.54 Route S Activity by Day-Part Boarding Alighting Avg Boarding Avg Alighting Trips Route S 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. 7 7 3.5 3.5 2 9:31 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 3 3 1.5 1.5 2 12:31 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. 4 4 2.0 2.0 2 3:31 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. 3 3 1.5 1.5 2

Given Route S has only two significant rip generators on this route we did include the highest boarding or alighting activity by stop in a data table. Rather the data table presents total route activity.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 177

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.3.55 Overall Boarding and Alighting by Stop B A Leave Galleria Transfer Point 11 0 Arrive Santucci Justice Center 2 7 Leave Santucci Justice Center 4 0 Arrive Galleria Transfer Point 0 10

Exhibit A.3.56 Route S Boardings and Alightings

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 178

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Ride Check Analysis Key Findings  Early departures or arrivals occurred approximately 12 percent of the time.  Roseville Transit posted an on-time performance of 81.1 percent during the ride check.  Route M had the best on-time performance compared with other Roseville Transit routes, exceeding the 90-percent on-time performance standard across all day-parts.  Route M achieved 100-percent on-time performance during early morning, late morning, and late afternoon trips.  The highest system averages of early departures occurred during the late morning and late afternoon day-parts.  System on-time performance was highest during the beginning of each trip gradually decreasing towards the trip-end (Exhibit A.3.4).  Late departures occurred on Route D during 50 percent the early afternoon trips (A.3.6).  Routes A, G, and S had more early arrivals than other Roseville Transit routes. Boarding averages dropped during the late afternoon.  Route B had the highest boarding activity (13 boardings per trip) compared with all other Roseville Transit route.  Routes G, I, and S exhibited the lowest boarding and alighting activity of any Roseville Transit route.  Routes A, B, C, D, G, I, and L had higher alighting averages during the late morning and early afternoon (off-peak hours) than on any other day-part.  The highest boarding average (11.1 boardings/trip) Route A occurred during the early afternoon, while the highest alighting (11.0 alightings/trip) occurred between 9:31 a.m. and 12:30 p.m.  Route B posted its greatest activity during the late afternoon and early morning day-parts. Route C’s boarding and alighting trend differed from overall system as the most-productive day-parts were late afternoon and late morning.  Route G’s productivity (1.6 boardings/trip and 2.5 alightings/trip) was far less than the system’s average for boardings and alightings.  The highest stop activity occurred at the Civic Center transfer point.  Ridership remains relatively low on Route R.  Ride check data reveals Route S had higher boardings in the morning than any other day- part.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 179

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

SECTION A.4 – TRANSFER ANALYSIS

Transfers play a significant role in daily transit operations in relation to ridership, cost-effectiveness, and customer satisfaction. In North America, at least 10 percent of transit riders make one or more transfers to reach their final destination.4 Frequency, synchronization, and accessibility are important elements to the efficiency and effectiveness of a transit network. Minimizing travel and wait times and creating a seamless connection between different modes of transportation is one of the main motivators in maintaining and attracting new riders. Assessing transfer activity aids in identifying the optimal placement of capital improvements, interlining, route coordination, efficiency, reduced operating costs, scheduling, leading to enhanced service delivery.

The City’s public transit service features both intercity and intra-city connections with Sacramento Regional Transit, Placer County Transit, and its own Commuter Bus service at an array of transfer points. For purposes of this analysis we focused on the following transfer points:

 Civic Center,  Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd,  Sierra Gardens, and  Galleria Mall.

To assess the efficiency of the Roseville Transit service network, our project team monitored transfer activity between September 28, 2010 and October 2, 2010 across a full service day (including off-peak hours) at the stipulated transfer points. Activity monitoring was segregated into two-hour blocks between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Data was then grouped into the following day parts:

 Morning “AM” Peak (6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.)  Midday Off-Peak (10:01 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.)  Afternoon “PM” Peak (2:01 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.)

Traditionally, afternoon peak-hours are designated as 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. However, given the two-hour blocks and the last service ending no later than 6:33 p.m., we utilized the timeframe presented above.

Making transfers can often be seen as time consuming and inconvenient. This inconvenience is commonly referred to as the “transfer penalty.” A transfer penalty relates to passenger’s perception (often negative) of transfers on a transit system. Transfer penalties can often deter

4 Guo, Zhan and Nigel H. M. Wilson. 2010. “Assessment of the Transfer Penalty for Transit Trips.” Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, October, 2010.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 180

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

patrons from utilizing a service by hindering their perception of a smooth and synchronized transfer. Rather they add to their reluctance in relying on transit as their main modal transport. Penalties may include long wait times, walk times, and vehicle times when transferring to another route or transit service. Other factors may include the cost to transfer or location of the transfer point5. The point of assessing the penalty through methods such as onboard surveys and origin and destination analysis is to identify the challenges impacting transfers and how to improve network coordination.

Transfer Activity by Day-Part and Location Exhibit A.4.1 presents the total transfer activity by day-part, type of service connection, and transfer point location. As illustrated in the following exhibit, the highest transfer activity occurred during midday or off-peak hours (between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.). The level of activity during this day-part reflects ride check analysis data (Section 1.3 – Boarding and Alighting), as the greatest boarding and alighting activity occurred during the late morning and early afternoon (9:31 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.) day-parts.

The Roseville Galleria experienced higher transfer volumes than any other transfer point. As presented in the table below, the majority of these transfers were the result of inter-service connections (i.e., transfers between Placer County Transit and the City of Roseville’s local transit service).

Exhibit A.4.1 Transfer Activity by Day-Part and Location Day-Part Type of AM Peak Midday Off-Peak PM Peak Service Transfer Point Connection 6:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. 10:01 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. 2:01 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Intracity 0 24 11 Civic Center Intercity 0 0 0 Intracity 3 3 1 Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd Intercity 6 19 19 Intracity 1 10 1 Sierra Gardens Intercity 0 0 0 Intracity 3 11 1 Galleria Mall Intercity 43 56 36 Total 56 123 69

Exhibit A.4.2 shows transfer activity by day-part. The highest number of transfers occurred during the midday or off-peak period. This is reflected in ride check data as well as, where the majority of riders preferred to use Roseville fixed-routes during the middle part of the day.

5 Ceder, Avishai. Public Transit Planning and Operation, Theory, Modelling, and Practice. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 181

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.4.2 Overall Transfer Activity by Day-Part

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 AM Peak Midday (Off-Peak) PM Peak

Exhibit A.4.3 illustrates travel demand and pattern at each transfer point. It is readily for the majority of riders prefer to use Roseville Transit Routes A, B, and D as well as Placer County Transit for their regional connections. Given the higher demand for Placer County Transit routes (Auburn to Light Rail and Lincoln/Sierra College), we recommend the City work with the County to coordinate transit schedules. By potentially increasing layovers at main transfer points, increasing frequencies, and synchronizing arrivals with departures, Roseville may be able to increase efficiency across the transit system.

Exhibit A.4.3 illustrates the percentage of route activity by transfer point. Transfer route activity is defined as any combination of transfers (whether the route is the origin or destination route) taking place with a specific route. For instance, Route A at the Galleria can have transfers between B, M, S, PCT, and Commuter Bus. Transfers to or from Route A to any one of these routes would be factored into the overall percentage of transfer activity on Route A for this transfer point. At all transfer points, the highest percentage of transfers included connections with Route A. Review of Roseville Transit’s schedule reveals wait times with Route A and PCT connections vary from five minutes at the Galleria to 37 minutes at the Louis/Orlando transfer point. This wide span of wait times can greatly affect ridership.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 182

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.4.3 Percent Transfer Activity by Route and Transfer Point

3.3% Galleria Mall 26.0% 17.3% 48.7% 4.7% A B C

Sierra Gardens 16.7% 33.3% 16.7% D G I M Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd 21.6% 29.4% 11.8% 7.8% 29.4% R S PCT SacRT Civic Center 42.9% 14.3% 17.1% 11.4% Commuter

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Origin and Destination Origin and destination analysis of transfers is significant to the synchronization of a transit network. Through evaluating transfer origin and destination data, we are able to identify general travel patterns and determine if whether the current level of service aligns or provides adequate connections to other transit providers. Unlike traditional boarding and alighting analysis of origin and destinations, this analysis reviews the origin of each transfer and the destination route. It provides a road map of patron activity through different transfer points.

Below presents the services connect at each transfer point. Each transfer point provides inter-and intra-city connections between Roseville Transit services and regional providers such as Sacramento Regional Transit and Placer County Transit.

Intra-city connections are connections which occur within the same jurisdiction, typically of the same operator, while intra-service pertains to services which operate to more than one jurisdiction.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 183

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.4.4 Connections at Transfer Points Transfer Points Routes or Services Civic Center Intra-city A, B, D, I , L Inter-city Commuter, AMTRAK Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd Intra-city A, B, R Inter-city PCT, SacRT, Commuter Sierra Gardens Intra-city A, B, C, G, L Inter-city Commuter Galleria Intra-city A, B, M, S Inter-city PCT, Commuter

Exhibit A.4.5, displays the transit network’s origin and destination trip pairings. As shown therein, the greatest number of transfers occurred between Placer County Transit and Roseville Transit. PCT to Roseville Transit connections averaged 7.6 transfers, while connections from Roseville Transit to PCT averaged 5.8 transfers. Given PCT services offer/provide timed-transfers at the Galleria and Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd transfer point, we can assume these higher intercity transfers occurred at these locations.

The greatest number of transfers occurred between Roseville Transit’s Local Route A and PCT. This suggests patrons are likely boarding PCT to reach services located along Route A’s alignment. As presented in Section 1.2 (Service Evaluation) Route A’s alignment runs along the arterials of the city. The service area adjacent to Route A is largely composed of businesses and provides access to main transfer points throughout the city. Given the time of day the majority of transfers occurred (Exhibit A.4.2) we believe the main trip purposes are likely non-employment related.

Similar to Route A, Route B also experienced a high level of connections with PCT. Route B follows the same alignment as Route A, yet travels in the opposite direction. Given Route B provides different stops than Route A and transfer activity was high, we can assume the demand for service to this area is equally high. This supports the need for better amenities in and around transfer points to keep up with transit demand.

The City of Roseville offers eight commuter runs in the morning and evening between Sacramento and Roseville. As presented in the ride check and transfer data, the greatest transfer activity occurred during non-traditional commute hours, suggesting the majority of riders do not utilize the fixed-route to meet their commuting needs.

Transfer data reveals no activity on Route G, I, L, and the Commuter Bus Service. As presented in the ride check analysis Exhibit 3.3.7, Route G had lower ridership compared to other Roseville Transit routes. This further suggests there is a lack of demand for this particular route.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 184

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Low transfer activity may also be due to the infrequency of service increasing the wait time for these routes. For example, if a Route A rider arrives at the 10:20 a.m. trip and desires to transfer to Route G, the rider runs the risk of waiting at the Sierra Garden Transfer Point for a period of one hour until the next Route G bus arrives. This gap in synchronization or transfer penalty between Roseville routes can deter many residents from using the service. We suggest the City review low productive routes to identify opportunities in the schedule that can be adjusted to coordinate with other transit provider times.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 185

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.4.5 Origin and Destination Origin and Destination Pairings (All Transfers) Destination Origin A B C D G I L M R S PCT SacRT Commuter Average A - 4 2 10 0 0 1 2 0 3 40 5 0 5.6 B 13 - 4 4 0 0 1 3 0 1 17 7 0 3.4 C 1 1 - - 0 - 0 ------0.3 D 2 3 - - - 0 1 - - - - - 0 1.0 G 0 0 0 - - - 0 ------0.0 I 1 0 - 3 - - 0 - - - - - 0 0.8 L 3 1 1 2 0 2 ------1.2 M 0 0 ------0 5 - 0 1.3 R 0 0 ------0 6 0 1.5 S 0 0 - - - - - 0 - - 7 - 0 1.8 PCT 39 23 - - - - - 13 0 2 - - 0 7.6 SacRT 5 10 ------0 - - - 0 3.3 Commuter 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0.0 Average 5.3 3.5 1.7 2.3 0.0 0.5 0.3 4.0 0.0 0.8 5.8 4.3 0.0 3.0

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 186

CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Civic Center Transfer Point The Civic Center Transfer Point is located adjacent to Roseville’s Civic Center at 311 Vernon Street. The transfer point is equipped with two pitch-roofed shelters (one on either side of the street), benches, adequate lighting, and trash receptacles. This bus stop provides access to Roseville Transit routes (A, B, D, I, and L), Roseville’s commuter service, and Amtrak.

Our inspection of transfer point amenities found that although shelters were aesthetically pleasing and well-maintained, high temperatures during midday (i.e., temperatures above 100 degrees) became unbearable due to the lack of ventilation and vents within the shelter. Onsite observations showed passengers often stood outside the shelter because the placement of the shelter was oriented in the direct path of the sun.

As presented in the table below, the greatest percentage of transfers occurred between routes A and D (28.6 percent). Transfer data reveals more than 50 percent of riders transferred from another Roseville route or service to Route D. Route A was the highest origin route at 42.9 percent, followed by Route D. Based on the schedule at the time of our evaluation, Route A arrives at the Civic Center every 30 minutes. Riders who alight from Route A with the intent of boarding Route D have a transfer penalty of at least 11 minutes. Given Route A trips begin at 6:13 a.m. and Route D does not arrive at the Civic Center until 6:54 a.m., a patron who utilizes Route A during the early morning must wait a minimum of 41 minutes for Route D. Keep in mind, due to the challenge of tracking transfers on routes which interline (Routes D, I, and L), transfer activity may be lower than expected.

Route B was the second-highest destination route overall. Exhibit A.4.6 shows more than 11 percent of riders alighted Route B to transfer to Route D. Based on the schedule at the time of our evaluation, Route B provides service every 30 minutes. If a Route B rider arrives at the Civic Center stop at 11:43 a.m. and would like to take Route D, the rider would need to wait about 11 minutes before Route D leaves the transfer stop. Although the majority of riders utilized Routes A, B, and D for connections, we believe better coordination could increase ridership and the attractiveness of these routes.

Three Commuter Bus routes serve the Civic Center transfer point. Trips arrive at 7:33 a.m., 9:00 a.m., and 6:01 p.m. Transfer data shows there were no transfers between the commuter service and Roseville Local routes. This is likely the result of the majority of riders (see Ride Check Analysis) using the fixed-route during midday trips versus traditional workday hours (i.e., 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) which is when the Commuter Bus Service runs.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 187 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit A.4.6 Civic Center Percent of Transfer Activity by Route Civic Center Destination Origin Route A Route B Route D Route I Route L Commuter Total Route A - 11.4% 28.6% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 42.9% Route B 0.0% - 11.4% 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 14.3% Route D 5.7% 8.6% - 0.0% 2.9% 0.0% 17.1% Route I 2.9% 0.0% 8.6% - 0.0% 0.0% 11.4% Route L 2.9% 0.0% 5.7% 5.7% - 0.0% 14.3% Commuter 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% - 0.0% Total 11.4% 20.0% 54.3% 5.7% 8.6% 0.0% 100.0%

Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd Transfer Point The transfer point is located on Louis Lane between Orlando Blvd and Whyte Avenue. The site has two shelters located on either side of Louis Lane, with benches and trash receptacles. The transfer point is located between a gas station and large parking lot, adjacent to a local business. Given the high incidence of use of this transfer point, we suggest the City invest in maintenance and the beautification of this transfer stop through providing more comfort and safety to all Roseville and regional passengers.

The Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd transfer point provides connections between routes A, B, and R as well as intercity connections via Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT), Roseville Commuter bus, and Placer County Transit. This is the only stop within Roseville which provides connections to SacRT. Given this fact, we recommend the City conduct a study to determine the viability of Park & Ride facility or parking lot at or adjacent to this intercity transfer point. Our onsite review of the location reveals a high frequency of intercity connectivity warranting the development of a Park & Ride parking lot/facility to accommodate commuters and patrons transferring to/from Sacramento. Additionally, we suggest aesthetic and amenity upgrades including bike racks, additional seating, and landscaping to better enhance the existing and potential expansion of this locale.

As illustrated by Exhibit A.4.7, SacRT to Roseville Transit route connections comprised more than 35 percent of transfers at the Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd transfer point. SacRT Routes 21, 93, and 103 serve the Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd transfer point, with Routes 21 and 93 passing through the stop every 30 minutes. Based on transfer data, the SacRT to Route B connection garnered nearly 14 percent of transfers during the evaluation. In comparing Roseville and SacRT transit schedules, the minimum wait time between Route 93 and Roseville routes is two minutes, only

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 188 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

a minute from Route 21 to Route B. This ideal wait time (five minutes or less) provides support that greater demand exists on Route B or Route A for transport throughout Roseville.

We recommend the City monitor Route A and B transfers to ensure passengers are not missing transfers due to early departures, or lack of sufficient time for transfers between Roseville Transit and SacRT departures.

Exhibit A.4.7 Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd Percent of Activity by Route Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd Destination Origin Route A Route B Route R PCT Sac RT Commuter Total Route A - 13.7% 0.0% 0.0% 9.8% 0.0% 23.5% Route B 0.0% - 0.0% 7.8% 19.6% 0.0% 27.5% Route R 0.0% 0.0% - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% PCT 11.8% 2.0% 0.0% - - 0.0% 13.7% SacRT 9.8% 13.7% 11.8% - - 0.0% 35.3% Commuter 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% - 0.0% Total 21.6% 29.4% 11.8% 7.8% 29.4% 0.0% 100.0%

Sierra Gardens Transfer Point The Sierra Gardens Transfer Point is located on Sierra Gardens drive between N. Sunrise Blvd and Santa Clara Drive. Patrons can connect to Routes A, B, C, G, and L (via the Sierra Gardens and Santa Clara stop), as well as the Roseville Commuter bus. As illustrated by Exhibit A.4.8, the highest transfer activity occurred between Routes A, B, and C.

Exhibit A.4.8 reveals nearly 60 percent of transfers occurred on Route C as the origin route. Interestingly, Route L and Route B were used more often as destination routes than other Roseville routes. No transfers occurred with Route L as an origin route during the ride check engagement. However, Route L accounted for more than 30 percent of transfers as a destination route. This suggests riders are using Route L to travel to their ending destination.

Based on the transit schedule, wait times from Route A to Route L vary from 12 minutes to 38 minutes. Long wait times are an inconvenience for the customer. Note observations reveal Route L buses stop further down the street from Sierra Gardens transfer point at the Sierra Gardens Drive and Santa Clara Drive stop. The additional time it takes to walk from the Route L drop off and Sierra Gardens transfer point becomes a burden or transfer penalty. We suggest the City review transfer locations to find more accommodating locations and provide the most accessible, safe, and convenient location for transfers between multiple transit providers. Additionally, to address this issue and identify a potential location better suited for a transfer

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 189 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

point along Santa Clara Drive, we recommend the City conduct a locational study (see Chapter 3 – Service Plan for further detail).

Exhibit A.4.8 Sierra Gardens Percent of Activity by Route Sierra Gardens Destination Origin Route A Route B Route C Route G Route L Commuter Total Route A - 0.0% 8.3% 0.0% 16.7% 0.0% 25.0% Route B 0.0% - 8.3% 0.0% 8.3% 0.0% 16.7% Route C 16.7% 33.3% - 0.0% 8.3% 0.0% 58.3% Route G 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% - 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Route L 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% - - 0.0% Total 16.7% 33.3% 16.7% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 100.0%

Galleria Mall Transfer Point The Galleria Mall Transfer Point is located at the Galleria Mall (1151 Galleria Blvd) in Roseville. The transfer point is comprised of four shelters linearly placed within the Mall’s parking lot. Roseville Transit Routes A, B, M, and S meet at this transfer stop. PCT and Roseville Commuter also depart from this stop however at a stop location outside the mall, on the sidewalk directly adjacent to the Galleria transfer point.

Roseville Transit provides a 10-minute layover at the Galleria Mall transfer point. This allows for a five minute buffer for late buses, allowing just enough time for riders to transfer between PCT and Roseville Transit. Although this is sufficient time for a transfer, the possibility of late departures on one bus can increase wait times on another. For example, if a rider arrives at 3:30 p.m. off the Auburn to Light Rail route and wants to transfer to Route A, he/she will have five minutes to get to the service before it leaves. However, if the bus runs late (five minutes after the scheduled time), the rider would miss the next A bus given it leaves at 3:35 p.m. Synchronization is key to developing a transit system which is both convenient and efficient.

As illustrated through the transit schedule, PCT transfers to Roseville routes offer a wait time ideal to a coordinated transit network. The transit schedule for both the Auburn to Light Rail route and the Lincoln/Sierra College route accommodate a five-minute transfer period, with the 10-minute layover built in the schedule. We suggest ridership data be incorporated into potential changes to the schedule. Excess time from the schedule should be removed or shifted onto proposed service changes.

Transfers with PCT as the origin route comprised more than 41 percent of Galleria transfers, while connections between Roseville Transit and PCT (as destination trips) comprised 48 percent

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 190 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

of transfers. This suggests the need to maintain on-time performance and minimize the amount of missed trips or transfers resulting from late arrivals and early departures.

Exhibit A.4.9 Galleria Percent of Activity by Route Galleria Destination Origin Route A Route B Route M Route S PCT Commuter Total Route A - 4.0% 0.0% 0.0% 26.0% 0.0% 30.0% Route B 0.0% - 0.0% 0.0% 12.7% 0.0% 12.7% Route M 1.3% 2.0% - 0.0% 8.7% 0.0% 12.0% Route S 2.0% 0.7% 0.0% - 1.3% 0.0% 4.0% PCT 22.7% 10.7% 3.3% 4.7% - 0.0% 41.3% Commuter 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% - 0.0% Total 26.0% 17.3% 3.3% 4.7% 48.7% 0.0% 100.0%

Transfer Analysis Key Findings  The highest transfer activity occurred during midday or off-peak hours (between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.).  The majority of riders prefer to use Roseville Routes A, B, and D as well as Placer County Transit for their regional connections.  Route A and PCT connections vary from five minutes at the Galleria to 37 minutes at the Louis/Orlando transfer point.  PCT to Roseville Transit connections averaged 7.6 transfers, while connections from Roseville Transit to PCT averaged 5.8 transfers.  Transfer data reveals no activity on Routes G, I, L, and the Commuter Service.  The greatest percentage of transfers at the Civic Center transfer point occurred between routes A and D (28.6 percent). Transfer data reveals more than 50 percent of riders transferred from another Roseville route or service to Route D.  SacRT to Roseville Transit route connections at the Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd transfer point comprised more than 35 percent of transfers at the Louis Lane/Orlando Blvd transfer point.  Nearly 60 percent of transfers at the Sierra Gardens transfer point occurred on Route C as the origin route. Interestingly, Route L and Route B were used more often as destination routes than other Roseville routes.  Transfers with PCT as the origin route comprised more than 41 percent of Galleria transfers, while connections between Roseville Transit and PCT (as destination trips) comprised 48 percent of transfers.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 191 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

SECTION A.5 – MARKETING ASSESSEMENT

This section reviews the current and recent marketing efforts used by the City of Roseville to promote its public transit service. It serves as an objective assessment of the City’s efforts toward improving awareness of the service and increasing ridership.

As noted in the 2009 Triennial Performance Audit (TPA), completed by LSC Transportation Consultants, the Alternative Transportation Department conducts the marketing and public outreach activities for Roseville Transit. The Department has one dedicated marketing specialist who is responsible for media releases, revisions to service guides, and other marketing materials. Utilizing this marketing assessment as an evaluation tool, we will provide preliminary recommendations to enhance marketing with respect to the City’s public transit services.

Local and Dial-A-Ride Services Guide The transit guide is a valuable tool in providing transit information (i.e., route map, transit schedule, how to ride the bus, etc.) to the general public. Currently, Roseville Transit service guides are available from its offices in Roseville (401 Vernon Street) or by mail upon request. To increase awareness of service offerings as well as boost ridership, service brochures should be made available at various community outlets including libraries, civic buildings, shopping centers, and transfer stations.

The guide provides insight regarding routes, fares, and code of conduct along with avenues for further assistance to unanswered questions or comments. The guide is fairly comprehensive and easy-to-read. However, there are some areas needing improvement. The Transit Ambassadors program description contains much of the same information found in the Trip Planning section on page 5 of the Local and Dial-A-Ride Services Guide. Roseville Transit may want to consider combining these sections to make accessing information easier.

The last area for improvement is the Spanish-language section. Fare alternatives are not translated within the section. Additionally, the E-Notify and Summer Youth Pass options also require translation. Lastly, Code of Conduct is not as extensive in the Spanish-language section as in the English-language section. We feel these are important oversights and should be corrected.

Commuter Service Guide The Commuter Service Guide is well organized and easy to read. The information regarding accessibility, fares, and routes are clearly displayed and presented in an accessible fashion. We believe this helps explain the popularity of the service.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 192 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Internet The Roseville Transit website is fairly easy to access. There is a direct link from/to City’s main page to the Roseville Transit website. Additionally, a Google search for “Roseville Transit” has the service’s website as the top choice. Roseville Transit has a unique URL which is http://www.roseville.ca.us/transportation/roseville_transit/default.asp.

This initial landing page provides links to the variety of transit services offered, rider tools, and fares. Each route map and schedule is provided as a PDF file. Visitors to the website can also access monthly newsletters, ride guides, trip planning tools, ADA services, system profile, and contact information. The main page also highlights recent updates to patrons and site visitors including special programs, service changes, and public service announcements.

The Roseville Transit web page also includes information regarding schedule times, maps, bikes on the bus, and hours of operation. Information is also available on the website regarding the Transit Ambassador program for patrons utilizing the service for the first time.

The Roseville Transit website also has a link to the Transportation Commission’s website. The Commission’s website contains a brief description of the Commission as well as member composition, meeting dates, location, City staff contact information, and past agendas and meeting minutes. The Roseville Transit website also has a calendar which displays Transportation Commission meetings, holidays, as well as transportation-related community events. We believe this is an effective and low-cost method of keeping the public informed regarding transportation issues in Roseville.

The City’s transit page as well as trip planning can also be accessed through www.sacregion511.org. This site is hosted by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments.

Public Communications The City of Roseville utilized a comprehensive outreach effort to keep patrons of Roseville Transit informed and engaged. The Alternative Transportation Department produces quarterly newsletters which cover topics ranging from community involvement and activities, the transit ambassador program, and information regarding the service like fares, schedule changes, and special services.

As mentioned earlier in this section, Roseville’s Alternative Transportation Department also provides a Transit Ambassador program which assists first-time riders with using the transit system. We feel this program is an excellent way for the City to get one-on-one interaction with customers and educate riders about the system.

Transit complaints are received verbally, and if the passengers feel the complaint is unresolved, the City encourages that passenger put their complaint in writing.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 193 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Recent or Current Marketing Efforts:  New South Placer Transit Information phone number (regional).  Summer Youth Bus Pass (regional).  Spare the Air Free Fare days (regional).  Transit Ambassador Program (regional).  Stop & Shop promotion (free Local Service trip with purchase of $10 or more at the Galleria at Roseville).  National Library Week promotion (free Local Service trip with Roseville Library card during April 10-16).  Go back to school with Roseville Transit.  Stuff-A-Bus canned food drive in November.  Bus, bike, or carpool to Earth Day festivities.  Booth at other community events.  Rosa Parks Day observance.  Ad in City Services Guide which is sent to all residents.  Targeted marketing to school groups, senior citizens, special interest groups, and residential communities.  Roseville Transit bus in July 4 Parade and Christmas Parade.  Roseville Transit commercial at Roseville movie theaters.  E-mail notifications and printed newsletters to passengers.

Additionally, the City seeks to further enhance its marketing of the transit service across the next planning year by employing the following activities.

Planned and Recommended Activities:  RFP for advertising agency to solicit/manage advertising on vehicles and shelters.  Electronic fare media.  “Next Trip” bus tracking.  Commuter Service passenger survey.  Short YouTube informational videos about using bus bike racks, “how to ride” the bus for beginners, how to use electronic fare cards, etc.  Direct mail piece to residents in close proximity to Local Service routes.  New bus stop signs which are consistent with Roseville Transit branding and communicate routes/destinations more clearly.  Higher profile marketing/awareness of Roseville Transit services to the Roseville community (i.e., ads inside Galleria mall, TV commercials, newspaper ads, utility bill inserts, etc.).

For further details regarding these recommended and planned marketing promotions refer to the Chapter 3 – Service Plan.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 194 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Marketing Recommendations  Maps: We recommend the City reposition the Local Service Map in front of the route-by- route maps. This will help readers/prospective riders get a feel for the overall transit system as well as help riders plan their route.  Additionally, we recommend the City consider creating symbols/icons for reach service (local, commuter, and dial-a-ride) and include transfer points on the map. As it is currently shown, there is no information on the maps regarding where transfers to commuter routes can be made.  Brochure: We recommend the City add the page number next to each route in the legend to help the reader turn directly to the relevant page.  We recommend adding a parallel Spanish version of the E-Notify, holiday schedule, trip planning, lost and found, and comments and suggestions.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 195 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 196 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

B B. PUBLIC INPUT

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 197 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 198 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

APPENDIX B– PUBLIC INPUT

SECTION B.1 – ONBOARD SURVEY ANALYSIS

As part of the public involvement process, Moore & Associates conducted onboard surveys between September 28 and October 2, 2010 concurrent with ride checks onboard Roseville Transit’s fixed- route service. The survey had the following objectives:

 Develop a demographic profile of the “arrange” Roseville Transit customer,  Codify current rider travel patterns,  Assess customer satisfaction,  Identify and prioritize potential service enhancements, and  Identify marketing preferences.

Methodology In conducting the survey, our project team recruited additional data collectors/surveyors from a local staffing firm based in Roseville. Prior to survey initiation, each surveyor attended a one-hour training session which included an overview of the project scope and Roseville Transit operations, survey expectations, review of the survey instrument, individual route schedules, and proper surveying protocol.

The survey was administered across representative service days (i.e., weekdays and Saturday) and throughout all day-parts. Surveyors positioned themselves near the front of the bus to collect boarding and alighting counts as well as facilitate survey distribution and collection. Surveyors provided each boarding passenger over the age of 16 with the bilingual survey, a clipboard, and pen or pencil. Passengers were also offered a postage-paid envelope to return the survey at a later date, if they so choose.

Moore & Associates’ staff provided on-site supervision. A field supervisor validated all surveys once each surveyor completed his/her assigned shift. In total, 389 valid surveys were collected which translates to a statistically-valid sample (with a 95-percent confidence level and +/-five percent margin of error).

Our project team began analyzing the survey data by entering it into our Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. After the data was cleaned, we generated simple frequencies and initial cross-tabulations. Lastly, we then exported the processed data to Microsoft Excel to generate charts and graphs for data analysis.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 199 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Demographic Information To develop a demographic profile of current Roseville Transit riders, the project team collected information regarding respondent age, employment status, and household income. The following is an analysis of the onboard survey results, reflecting a representative sample of Roseville Transit’s profile rider.

Respondent Age Exhibit B.1.1 shows age distribution of the survey respondents. The 26 to 44 years and 17 to 25 years subsets had the highest share at approximately 32 percent each; combined these age groups make up 65 percent of the respondent population. This indicates the majority of the transit patrons are young to middle-aged adults.

As a point of information, the Onboard Survey was made available to all persons believed to be 16 years and older boarding Roseville Transit during the survey period. This qualifier most likely accounts the low number of respondents in the 16 years or younger demographic.

Exhibit B.1.1 Respondent Age

7.6% 7.0% 16 years or younger 20.3% 32.3% 17-25 years

26-44 years

32.8% 45-59 years

60 years or older

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 200 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Employment Status Exhibit B.1.2 illustrates the employment status of the survey respondents. Approximately 36 percent of transit riders were employed, either full-time or part-time, while nearly 24 percent indicated being a full-time student. A relatively large portion of riders indicated they were not currently employed, yet seeking work. The fact that a small portion of riders are actually employed full-time could result in a diversified demand for transit trips, whereby trips may be made at various times throughout the day for various reasons; such as work, school, or to seek employment.

Exhibit B.1.2 Employment Status

Employed full-time 8.5% 1.8% Employed part-time 0.5% 21.6% Not currently employed 23.9% (seeking work) 14.9% Full-time student

16.2% Visiting/not local resident

Employed within the home

Retired

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 201 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Employment Status vs. Frequency of Transit Use Exhibit B.1.3 is a cross tabulation of employment status and frequency of use. Cross-tabulations are aimed at revealing possible relationships between various data sets. The chart illustrates most-frequent to least frequent riders from top to bottom. Nearly 50 percent of those employed full-time use Roseville Transit five or more times per week, which is a similar trend with full-time students and those not currently employed, but seeking work. Yet those employed part-time tend to ride Roseville Transit more frequently, as nearly 50 percent stated they use the service five or more times per week.

Among respondents citing employed within the home (representing two percent of the respondents) they stated riding Roseville Transit relatively frequency (two or more times per week); meaning they likely rely on Roseville Transit for the bulk of their non-work related transportation needs.

Exhibit B.1.3 Employment Status vs. Frequency of Transit Use 100% 90% 20.0% 30.0% 33.3% 80% 35.8% 42.9% 49.1% 50.0% 70% 60% 53.3% 50% 45.0% 40% 48.1% 52.2% 30% 36.8% 50.0% 57.1% 20% 11.7% 20.0% 10% 12.3% 10.5% 13.3% 11.1% 0% 6.7% Employed full- Employed Not currently Full-time Visiting/not Employed Retired time part-time employed student local resident within the (seeking work) home Less than once/month 1-4 times/month 2-4 times/week 5 or more times/week

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 202 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Private Automobile Access Survey participants were asked two basic questions to assess their degree of ride-dependency. In the simplest terms, ride-dependency means the extent to which an individual relies on alternative forms of transportation for their mobility needs.

The first question asked if they possessed a valid driver license. More than half (60 percent) of all respondents indicated they did not possess a valid driver license. The second question asked whether they have a vehicle readily available for personal use. Nearly 79 percent indicated not having ready access. Responses to these two questions suggest the majority of survey participants are transit-dependent rather than being “choice riders.”

Household Income Transit industry market research confirms a direct correlation between income and transit usage. Exhibit B.1.4 presents the annual household income of the survey respondents. In looking at the two lower-income segments, nearly 80 percent of the survey respondents stated having a household income of less than $34,000. This suggests the typical Roseville Transit rider’s household income is well below the median household income of Roseville of $74,128 (2009 Federal Census). As such it can be concluded that Roseville Transit is seen as an affordable travel option for low-income residents in Roseville.

Exhibit B.1.4 Household Income

7.6% 13.4% Less than $20,000

15.8% $20,001 - $34,000 63.2% $34,001 - $50,000

More than $50,000

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 203 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Frequency of Transit Use vs. Household Income The next data cross-tabulation regarding ride frequency is the possible relationship between annual income and frequency of ridership. Those earning less than $20,000 make up the majority of patrons for both frequent and non-frequent riders. This is suggests low-income individuals are a key rider group for Roseville Transit.

It is interesting to note those who earn more than $34,001 tend to ride the bus most frequently (two or more times per week). These findings show the most frequent riders of Roseville Transit are distributed amongst household income levels.

Exhibit B.1.5 Frequency of Transit Use vs. Household Income 100% 7.7% 9.0% 7.9% 90% 12.1% 7.7% 13.9% 80% 14.3% 70% 18.8% 17.8% 60% 50% 40% 84.6% 81.8% 30% 57.9% 60.4% 20% 10% 0% Less than once/ 1-4 times/ 2-4 times / 5 or more times/ month month week week

Less than $20,000 $20,001 - $34,000 $34,001 - $50,000 More than $50,000

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 204 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Trip Purpose To assess transit patron use of the Roseville Transit service, respondents were asked what their primary reason was for making the surveyed trip. In looking at Exhibit B.1.6, the majority of riders (55 percent) use Roseville Transit for work or school trip purposes. The third most-frequent trip purpose was shopping, while recreation/social and access to healthcare made up approximately 26 percent of the respondents. This indicates a high demand for home-to-work and home-to-school travel by transit.

Exhibit B.1.6 Trip Purpose

6.10% 11.70% Work 31.70% 10.90% School Shopping 15.50% Recreation/Social 24.00% Access healthcare Other

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 205 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Frequency of Transit Use vs. Trip Purpose Exhibit B.1.7 illustrates the relationship between frequency of use and trip purpose. As frequency of use increases, work and school trips make up more than 60 percent or more of the trip purpose. This relationship further suggests the majority of Roseville Transit riders, more specifically everyday riders, use the service for commuter-related trips (i.e., home-to-work and home-to-school).

Exhibit B.1.7 Frequency of Transit Use vs. Trip Purpose 100% 11.3% 8.5% 90% 16.3% 5.1% 30.0% 6.3% 7.6% 80% 9.3% 10.0% 12.7% 70% 5.0% 20.9% 11.9% 60% 20.0% 50% 25.4% 27.5% 40% 25.6% 30% 30.0% 20% 9.3% 40.7% 5.0% 32.5% 10% 18.6% 10.0% 0% Less than once/ 1-4 times/ 2-4 times/ 5 or more times/ month month week week

Work School Shopping Recreation/Social Access healthcare Other

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 206 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Transit Influences Exhibit B.1.8 illustrates the reason respondents select Roseville Transit for their specific trip. Nearly 44 percent of respondents indicated using the service due to a lack of other travel options, while approximately 30 percent indicated they used the service out of convenience. This suggests a large portion of Roseville Transit riders are ride-dependent and have few or no others transportation options available to make certain trips, which corresponds to the findings from the previous discussions of ride-dependency (see Exhibits B.1.1-B.1.5). The findings also suggest current riders use Roseville Transit because it provides a transportation option which is readily available and/or travels to preferred destinations.

Exhibit B.1.8 Transit Influences

Cost of service 1.40% 7.70% 12.90% Lack of other travel options 30.10% Environmental 43.60% Convenience

Avoid traffic/parking 6.60% Other

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 207 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Frequency of Transit Use vs. Transit Influences Exhibit B.1.9 shows the relationship between the frequency of transit use and why respondents chose to ride Roseville Transit. With the exception of respondents who ride less than once per month, the main reason cited for riding Roseville Transit was lack of other travel options. For those who ride less than once per month their primary influences for riding Roseville Transit is convenience. Through this relationship it was found there is little correlation between frequency of use and why riders choose Roseville Transit.

The correlation between frequency of use and transit influences is analogous with the findings in previous exhibits. We know from the survey responses the majority of respondents are likely ride-dependent and consequently rely heavily on Roseville Transit for their basic intra-city mobility.

Exhibit B.1.9 Frequency of Transit Use vs. Transit Influences

100% 4.7% 7.5% 7.7% 16.7% 80% 32.6% 28.8% 27.4% 60% 33.3% 9.3% 7.5% 40% 11.1% 37.2% 43.1% 46.2% 20% 27.8% 16.3% 11.9% 13.7% 0% 5.6% Less than once/ 1-4 times/ 2-4 times/ 5 or more times/ month month week week

Cost of service Lack of other travel options Environmental Convenience Avoid traffic/parking Other

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 208 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Frequency of Transit Use Frequency of use generally will align with trip purpose. For example, school and work trips are trip purposes which tend to require multiple rides in a given week. However, in cases where a high percentage of riders are ride-dependent, they may use transit services frequently for many different trip purposes.

The following exhibit illustrates respondent frequency of use regarding Roseville Transit. More than 80 percent of the riders indicated they use Roseville Transit at least two times per week. The findings here are not surprising given the relatively high incidence of ride-dependency and commuter-related trips noted (see Exhibits B.1.6 and B.1.7).

Exhibit B.1.10 Frequency of Transit Use

5.7%

12.7% 34.6% Less than once/month 1-4 times/month 2-4 times/week 47.0% 5 or more times/week

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 209 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Length of Patronage Exhibit B.1.11 shows how long respondents have been riding Roseville Transit. There were very few first-time riders during the survey period, where approximately 67 percent of respondents stating being a patron for at least one year. The committed nature of the survey respondents suggests the length of patronage is a function of the absence of mobility options, quality of service, and the perceived value of riding Roseville Transit.

In addition this finding, along with frequency of use, validates the survey results, as they are reflective of the typical Roseville Transit rider.

Exhibit B.1.11 Length of Patronage

6.8% 33.5% 25.8% First-time rider Less than 1 year 1 to 3 years 33.8% More than 3 years

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 210 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Length of Patronage vs. Frequency of Transit Use The following is a cross-tabulation which explores the positive relationship between frequency of use and respondent’s length of patronage. Exhibit B.1.12 shows as length of patronage increases the frequency of use increases, also indicates the majority of long-time patrons ride most-frequently two to four times per week).

Exhibit B.1.12 Length of Patronage vs. Frequency of Transit Use

100% 90% 27.27% 80% 34.57% 33.94% 38.68% 70% 60% 36.36% 50% 44.95% 40% 55.56% 45.28% 30% 20% 36.36% 10% 17.43% 10.38% 8.64% 0% 3.67% 5.66% First-time rider Less than 1 year 1 to 3 years More than 3 years

Less than once/month 1-4 times/month 2-4 times/week 5 or more times/week

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 211 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Transit Accessibility Exhibit B.1.13 illustrates how respondents access the bus stop to initiate the surveyed trip. The majority of riders either walked or transferred from another bus to access the Roseville Transit bus stop. Among those who walked (combined 53 percent), there was a split between walked more than three blocks and walked less than three blocks. This suggests Roseville Transit stops vary in their accessibility to patrons depending upon trip origin and destination. This also may be a reflection of the low-density land-use pattern found throughout the city. For example, in a low- density residential neighborhood whose street network is not on a grid, there may not be a bus stop accessible for more than three blocks or a quarter-mile.

Of the nearly 29 percent who transferred from another bus, the majority transferred from Placer County Transit (43 percent of transfers). Roseville Transit accounted for 22 percent of transfers and Sacramento Regional Transit 21 percent. Of those who transferred from another Roseville Transit route, Routes A and B were predominant. Given the high transfer activity amongst the three operators, we suggest the City work with Placer County Transit and Sacramento Regional Transit to better coordinate schedules and transfers at select transfer points (i.e., Roseville Galleria, Louis/Orlando, etc.).

The findings also indicate there a number of transit riders who ride a bicycle to access the bus stop to initiate their Roseville Transit trip (10 percent of respondents). Again given the land-use character of Roseville, we recommend the City ensure all bus stops are accessible to bicyclists, and should consider providing bike storage/lockers at those bus stops with high boardings. Although the entire Roseville Transit fixed-route bus fleet is equipped with front-mounted bike racks, there may be instances wherein a patron with a bike is unable to board because the rack is full.

Exhibit B.1.13 Transit Accessibility Other Drive 3% 1% Dropped off Bicycle 4% 11% Roseville Transit 6% Walk less than SacRT 3 blocks 5% 29% Transfer from another bus Placer County Transit Walk more than 12% 3 blocks 29%

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 212 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Transfer Activity To further assess transfer activity of Roseville Transit riders, the survey asked respondents how many buses it would take to complete their one-way trip. Nearly 70 percent stated the surveyed trip would require at least two buses to complete, meaning they would need to transfer either to another Roseville Transit bus or another service.

Exhibit B.1.14 Transfer Activity

9.4% 30.7% 17.9% One bus 2 buses 3 buses 42.0% 4 or more buses

Mobility Alternatives To assess the incidence of potential ride- or transit-dependence, participants were asked how they would have made the surveyed trip had Roseville Transit not been available. The most frequently cited alternative was walk or bicycle. This either suggests respondent’s trips are short enough to make walking or bicycling feasible, or they truly have no other alternative for getting to where they need to travel.

A relatively high number of patrons stated they would not make this trip (28.3 percent). This also confirms the finding that a large number of Roseville Transit customers are ride-dependent and would not be able to make certain trips if the service was not available. This may also be reflective of those riders using the service for shopping, recreation, or other personal reasons, wherein the trip can be made at a different time, day, or not made at all.

Exhibit B.1.15 Mobility Alternatives

1.9% 6.3% 19.9% Drive self 28.3% Would not make this trip 4.4% Walk or bicycle Taxi 39.2% Friend or family Other

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 213 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Fare Category Exhibit B.1.16 shows the fare category for each respondent. The general public category applies to those who are not eligible for a discounted fare and cost $1.50 for a one-way trip. The discounted fare category applies to riders who are seniors (age 60 and older), persons with disabilities, Medicare cardholders, and students (ages 5-18, through Grade 12). The Senior/Disabled/Medicare/Student one-way fare cost 75 cents. Persons who qualify for a discounted fare category must hold a valid ID card issued by Roseville Transit. Those younger than five years ride free with a fare paying adult. This fare policy was introduced on April 4, 2010.

Approximately 64 percent of all respondents fell within the general public fare category. Given the age distribution of respondents (Exhibit B.1.1), it is not surprising the general fare predominates. However, the senior/disabled/student/Medicare category is not insignificant. Again referencing Exhibit B.1.1 (age distribution of respondents), less than 15 percent of riders were either 16 years and younger or 60 years and older, which indicates the majority of those in the discounted fare category either have a disability or are Medicare cardholders. Exhibit B.1.16 Fare Category

36.5% General public 63.5% Senior/Disabled/Student/M edicare

Fare Type Exhibit B.1.17 shows how survey respondents paid for their fare and what fare media they selected. The single cash fare includes all one-way trips. Four other fare types are available:

 Daily Pass: General Public ($4.00) and Senior/Disabled/Medicare/Student ($2.00)  20-Ride Book: General Public ($30.00) and Senior/Disabled/Medicare/Student ($15.00)  Monthly Passes: General Public ($58.00) and Senior/Disabled/Medicare/Student ($29.00)  Summer Youth Bus Pass: Student ($10.00)

More than half (58 percent) of the riders surveyed stated they paid for their trip using a single cash fare. The second most frequent response was the 20-ride ticket book, comparing approximately 16 percent of riders. The daily pass and monthly pass were the least utilized fare type.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 214 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

The heavy reliance on cash fare suggests riders either prefer the flexibility of paying per trip and/or feel purchasing other fare types is too difficult or inconvenient. The low use of the monthly pass and 20-ride ticket book is surprising given the high number of respondents who ride more than two times per week. The City could benefit from not only promoting the monthly pass and 20-ride ticket book, but also making ticket purchasing easier and available at more locations within Roseville and preferably transit accessible.

Providing non-cash based fare media has genuine advantages for patrons and transit operators. From the patron’s perspective, non-cash fare media eliminates the need to carry exact change and usually includes a monetary savings versus individual cash fares. The non-cash fare advantages to operators are reduced collection costs, shorter dwell time at stops, and predictable income for the duration of the pass.

The high proportion of cash fare suggests the City may have an opportunity to increase awareness among patrons of available fare media such as multiple day passes and monthly passes. Allowing passes to be purchased from outlets such as grocery markets as well as social service organizations could help increase market penetration.

Exhibit B.1.17 Fare Type

13.2%

12.5% Single cash fare

58.2% 20-Ride ticket book 16.1% Daily pass Monthly pass

Frequency of Transit Use vs. Fare Type Exhibit B.1.18 illustrates the relationship between frequency of use and the fare type. The chart shows both frequent and non-frequent riders chose cash fare the most. As patrons ride Roseville Transit more frequently, they tend to use the cash fare and daily pass less, and use the monthly pass more.

While non-frequent riders prefer cash fare, frequent riders tend to use the various passes and ticket book as they may realize cost savings on a per-trip basis over the lifespan of the pass or ticket book. In addition, it may also be that the more frequent riders are more aware of the different types of passes available and where/how to purchase them.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 215 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Here again, the City should focus on encouraging the use of multi-trip passes and ticket books. Marketing the types of fare media could help realize cost savings to patrons and potentially increase ridership by allowing patrons to take multiple trips without the burden of carrying exact fare for each trip. In the long-run this can improve operations as the less time drivers spend collecting cash fare the less time needed for passenger loading.

Exhibit B.1.18 Frequency of Transit Use vs. Fare Type

100% 12.50% 13.51% 7.91% 90% 26.73% 12.50% 16.55% 80% 18.92% 70% 4.95% 20.14% 60% 10.89% 50% 40% 75.00% 67.57% 30% 55.40% 57.43% 20% 10% 0% Less than 1-4 times/month 2-4 times/week 5 or more once/month times/week

Single cash fare 20-ride ticket book Daily pass Monthly pass

Customer Satisfaction Survey participants were asked to rank nine individual service attributes using a five-point numerical scale (1= very dissatisfied, 5= very satisfied). Exhibit B.1.19 presents the results.

In terms of overall satisfaction (on the far right of the exhibit), 53 percent of respondents indicated being very satisfied with Roseville Transit while 32 percent reported being satisfied. Only six percent were either somewhat dissatisfied (three percent) or very dissatisfied (three percent). When aggregated, 85 percent of respondents held a positive view of Roseville Transit.

Of the individual service attributes, Roseville Transit received no less than 67 percent satisfaction rating. The service attributes with the highest marks for very satisfied are driver courtesy (64 percent), safety on bus (63 percent), and comfort onboard bus (56 percent).

While an 85 percent “positive rating” is quite commendable, three low-ranked attributes require attention. The service attributes with the highest dissatisfaction rating were fare (13 percent combined), proximity of bus stop to home (11 percent combined), and availability of route/schedule information (11 percent).

We also performed a data cross-tabulation analysis between frequency of use and customer satisfaction. No positive correlation was found.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 216 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit B.1.19 Customer Satisfaction

100%

90%

80% 43.4% 48.1% 51.1% 51.3% 51.9% 53.1% 56.5% 70% 64.4% 63.0%

60%

50% 24.1% 40% 24.0% 24.6% 25.0% 29.6% 30% 25.3% 31.9% 20.3% 23.6% 19.8% 20% 16.4% 13.0% 15.6% 12.8% 11.7% 10% 9.9% 9.1% 9.4% 6.4% 6.0% 6.4% 3.8% 2.7% 2.1% 3.8% 2.9% 5.0% 5.5% 4.3% 6.2% 0% 2.7% 3.2% 2.7% 3.0% 2.9% Confort Onboard Driver Courtesy Safety on Bus Availability of Proximity of Bus Proximity of Bus On-Time Fare Overall Satisfaction Bus Route/Schedule Stop to Home Stop to Destination Performance Information (Starting Point) (End Point)

Very dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 217 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Preferred Service Enhancements Survey participants were provided with a list of six potential service enhancements and asked to select the one they would most like to see implemented. As a point of reference, at the time of the survey, Roseville Transit operated ten local fixed-route alignments a commuter bus service, and a Dial-A-Ride service. Roseville Transit’s operating hours were from 6:03 a.m. to 6:36 p.m. during the weekdays, with reduced Saturday service (8:03 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.). No Sunday service was offered.

Exhibit B.1.20 illustrates the selected preferred enhancements. The top-ranked service changes were later evening service (33 percent) and more frequent service (26 percent). Two other service enhancements drew considerable interest: Sunday service (16 percent) and more routes/extended service area (14 percent).

Given a large portion of riders use the service for school and work trips, we recommend the City extend service hours to at least meet the last Placer County Transit trip(s) during weekday evenings. Two Placer County Transit routes connect with Roseville Transit: the PCT Lincoln to Sierra College route connects with Roseville Transit at the Galleria, and stops there every hour from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m.; and the PCT Auburn to Light Rail route connects with Roseville Transit at Louis/Orlando, and stops there every hour from 5:40 a.m. to 7:40 p.m. Based on City-provided data, Roseville Transit Routes A and B have the highest number of unlinked passenger trips annually (see Section A.3) and both serve the Galleria and Louis/Orlando transfer points. We believe these routes should be targeted for extension of evening service.

As noted above, more frequent service was one of the highest ranked service enhancements. The City may benefit from increasing the frequency of some of its more highly patronized routes. Doing so may reduce transfer penalties, which are the negative perceptions riders have of transfers given their perceived inconvenience (i.e. the waiting time between transfers). At the time of this report, Roseville Transit Routes A and B operated on 30-minute headways, while all other routes had headways of 60-minutes or greater. Transit market research consistently reveals “service frequency” as one of the top decision-making factors when considering public transit as a travel alternative. Exhibit B.1.20 Preferred Enhancements

More frequent service

Newer buses 13.6% 26.3% 15.6% Later evening service

Additional Saturday 5.2% 33.2% service 6.1% Sunday service

More routes/extended service area (Specify)

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 218 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Frequency of Transit Use vs. Preferred Enhancements Exhibit B.1.21 explores the relationship between the frequency of use and the preferred service enhancements. Adding later evening service is the most popular choice across all ridership categories. The main difference between frequent riders (two or more times per week) and non-frequent riders (four or less times per month) is the preference between Sunday service and additional Saturday service. Among “frequent riders,” Sunday service is the preferred enhancement, while “less frequent riders” want additional Saturday service.

Exhibit B.1.21 Frequency of Transit Use vs. Preferred Enhancements

100% 13.3% 12.8% 12.2% 16.4% 6.7% 80% 12.8% 17.9% 13.3% 13.8% 7.7% 5.8% 4.3% 60% 33.3% 35.9% 30.8% 38.8% 40% 4.5% 13.3% 5.1% 20% 5.2% 28.8% 20.0% 25.6% 21.6% 0% Less than once/month 1-4 times/month 2-4 times/week 5 or more times/week

More frequent service Newer buses Later evening service Additional Saturday service Sunday service More routes/extended service area (specify)

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 219 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Impact on Ridership Survey respondents were asked how they might change their travel behavior if the City implemented their preferred service enhancements. Exhibit B.1.22 shows how many additional trips respondents would make given their preferred service enhancement, with no change at the bottom to increase by more than five trips per week at the top of the chart.

Respondents were fairly split on how they would change their travel behavior if the City implemented their service enhancements. If the City implemented later evening service, (see Exhibit B.1.20), approximately 4 percent of respondents who cited this improvement would make at least three additional trips per week. On an annual basis, this translates to at least 156 additional trips per person per year.

Of the respondents who wanted more frequent service, over 47 percent of respondents stated they would make at least three additional trips per week. We estimate adding more frequent service could potentially yield at least 156 trips per person per year.

Exhibit B.1.22 Impact on Ridership 100% 16.2% 16.3% 90% 21.2% 17.6% 22.2% 22.5% 80% 5.9% 14.3% 5.9% 5.6% 70% 26.7% 25.9% 11.8% 20.0% 60% 50% 44.4% 46.9% 25.0% 40% 24.7% 32.4%

30% 58.8% 7.5% 20% 4.8% 11.1% 12.2% 25.9% 25.0% 10% 20.0% 16.7% 10.2% 0% More frequent Newer buses Later evening Additional Sunday service More service service Saturday service routes/extended service area (specify) No change Increase by less than 1 trip/week Increase by 1-2 trips/week Increase by 3-4 trips/week Increase by more than 5 trips/week

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 220 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Support for Fare Increase Survey respondents were also asked how large a fare increase they might support, if necessary, in order to realize the requested service improvement. Forty-four percent indicated a willingness to pay an additional twenty-five cents. However, 38 percent indicated they wouldn’t support any fare increase. This suggests many patrons feel the current fare structure is appropriate for the value realized.

Transit Research Cooperative Program Report 95 estimates the standard fare elasticity for fixed- route bus service is for every one percent increase in fare cost, Roseville Transit could expect to see a 0.4 percent drop in ridership.6 Therefore we estimate a 25-cent fare increase would result in an initial decrease in ridership of approximately 10 percent. However TRCP research also indicates that post-increase ridership loss tends to be temporary in nature.

Exhibit B.1.23 Support for Fare Increase

25 cents more 38.40% 44.40%

50 cents more

17.20% Wouldn't support any increase

6 McCollom, Brian E., Richard H. Pratt. Transit Research Board. TCRP Report 95: Chapter 12 – Transit Pricing and Fares. (Washington, 2004).

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 221 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Information Channels To help define future Roseville Transit marketing activities, survey participants were asked how they typically obtain information about Roseville Transit services. The respondents were provided with the option to select multiple answers, as riders may obtain information from multiple sources.

The two most popular information sources were bus drivers and at the bus stop. This reflects the need to institute and continue to maintain the placement of easy-to-understand service information at individual bus stop locations and also onboard the buses themselves.

Other popular sources of information were call City office and the City website. This presents an opportunity for the City to cost-effectively target a broad customer base via increased marketing and transit information on the City’s website.

Exhibit B.1.24 Information Channels

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0 Bus driver At the bus Call City City On-board Passenger Transit e- Social stop office website messages newsletter notify service agency

Onboard Survey Analysis Key Findings  The 17 to 25 years and 26 to 44 years cohorts had the highest share of survey respondents at approximately 32 percent each.  Approximately 36 percent were employed, either full-time or part-time, while nearly 24 percent indicated being a full-time student.  A relatively large portion indicated they were not currently employed, yet seeking work.  Nearly 79 percent indicated not having ready access to a private automobile suggesting Roseville Transit riders are ride-dependent.  Those earning less than $20,000 make up the majority of patrons for both frequent and non- frequent riders. This is a confirmation of low-income individuals being a dominant rider group for Roseville Transit.  The majority of Roseville Transit riders, more specifically everyday riders, use the service for home-to-work and home-to-school.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 222 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

 Nearly 44 percent of respondents indicated they used the service for their trip due to a lack of other travel options, while approximately 30 percent indicated they used the service out of convenience.  More than 80 percent indicated they ride Roseville Transit at least two times per week.  Approximately 67 percent of the respondents stated being a patron of Roseville Transit for at least one year.  As length of patronage increases the frequency of use increases, also illustrating the majority of long-time patrons ride Roseville Transit most-frequently (two to four times per week).  Of the nearly 29 percent who transferred from another bus, the majority transferred from Placer County Transit (43 percent of transfers).  Nearly 70 percent stated their trip would require at least two buses to complete, meaning they would need to transfer either to another Roseville Transit bus or another service.  The most-frequent travel alternative was to walk or bicycle if Roseville Transit was not available  Approximately 64 percent of all respondents fell within the general public fare category.  More than half (58 percent) of the riders surveyed stated they paid for their trip using a single cash fare.  As patrons ride Roseville Transit more frequently, they tend to use the cash fare and daily pass less, and use the monthly pass more.  When aggregated, 85 percent of respondents held a positive view of Roseville Transit.  The top-ranked service changes were later evening service (33 percent) and more frequent service (26 percent). Two other service enhancements drew considerable interest: Sunday service (16 percent) and more routes/extended service area (14 percent).  Among “frequent riders,” Sunday service is the preferred enhancement, while “less frequent riders” want additional Saturday service.  If the City implemented later evening service, (see Exhibit B.1.20), approximately 4 percent of respondents who cited this improvement would make at least three additional trips per week. On an annual basis, this translates to at least 156 additional trips per person per year.  Forty-four percent of respondents indicated a willingness to pay an additional twenty-five cents. However, 38 percent indicated they wouldn’t support any fare increase.  The two most popular information channels were bus drivers and at the bus stop.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 223 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

SECTION B.2 – COMMUNITY SURVEY ANALYSIS

The community survey was made available online across a four-week period from August 18 and September 7, 2010. During this period the customer surveys and ride checks were also being conducted onboard Roseville Transit fixed-route buses. The community survey was designed with the following objectives:

 Assess community awareness of Roseville Transit services,  Codify travel behavior of Roseville residents,  Identify and prioritize potential transit service enhancements, and  Identify the most popular marketing channels (i.e. direct mail, City website, newspaper, etc.)

Methodology A random-sampling methodology was utilized to generate a database of residential addresses throughout the Roseville Transit service area. Bilingual postcards promoting the online survey were mailed to 1,200 households.

The online survey was designed using Survey Monkey; an online survey tool which Moore & Associates has utilized to organize survey responses and produce summary tables and graphs. During the three-week period the community survey was posted online, the majority of responses were received within the first five days.

To analyze the survey responses, we entered the data into the firm’s Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) platform. Next, simple frequencies and cross-tabulations (relationships) were generated. The data was then exported into Microsoft Excel to create charts and graphs.

The online survey yielded 61 valid responses. All online community surveys were completed in English. Although the online generated a five-percent response rate, there were several opportunities for public participation. Our market research experience leads us to conclude a low survey response, in terms of a general community survey, can often be attributed to apathy arising from perceived lack of program issues. In other words, since Roseville Transit is not frequently criticized in the local media, everything must be operating as intended.

Community Transit Awareness and Use The survey had three sections: current/recent rider, non-rider, and all respondents. While more than 98 percent of the respondents indicated an unaided awareness of the City’s public transit service, only about 16 percent stated they have ridden Roseville Transit within the 90 days prior to survey contact. This indicates that although many residents are aware of the City’s transit service, a significantly smaller share has actually ridden the bus in the recent past.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 224 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

More than 96 percent of survey respondents stated they have a valid driver license and/or access to a personal vehicle. Only about two percent indicated having a disability which impairs their personal mobility.

In terms of geographic distribution, nearly 38 percent of respondents live in the 95747 zip code (western Roseville), approximately 25 percent from the 95661 zip code (southeastern Roseville), and approximately 20 percent from the 95678 zip code (central Roseville). The remaining 18 percent did not indicate the zip code of their residence.

Respondent Profile To develop a “snapshot” or profile of the survey respondent, several voluntary demographic questions were posed. This revealed approximately 44 percent of the respondents are not employed outside the home, while an additional eight percent stated they are currently enrolled in school/vocational training. Collectively this translates to at least 44 percent of survey participants not adhering to traditional commute patterns. Of those who stated employed outside the home, there were two dominant trip destinations among respondents who provided their work location. Roseville had the highest share at nearly 45 percent and Sacramento was second with 31 percent. This suggests Roseville Transit allocation of service is appropriate given the current resident travel patterns.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 225 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Respondent Age versus Use of Roseville Transit Exhibit B.2.1 illustrates the relationship between survey respondent age and use of Roseville Transit. There is a marked difference between riders and non-riders in terms of their age range. Non-riders have a more even distribution of age ranges whereas riders tend to concentrated around the 40 to 50 years old cohort. For example, no respondent in the rider group was in the age range of 55 to 69 years old or 70 or older.

Overall, the community survey had a disproportionate share of non-riders. In absolute numbers, there were at least six time as many non-riders as riders overall with non-riders having significantly high representation among those 55 years and older. This suggests Roseville Transit has relatively low penetration amongst all age demographics and especially among seniors.

Exhibit B.2.1 Respondent Age vs. Use of Roseville Transit 100% 11.1% 90%

80% 22.2% 70% 57.1%

60%

50% 33.3%

40%

30% 28.6% 20% 24.4%

10% 14.3% 8.9% 0% Rider Non- Rider

17 -24 years 25 -39 years 40 -54 years 55 -69 years 70 or older

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 226 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Community Travel Behavior To gain insight into the travel behavior the Roseville community at-large, the survey included several questions regarding the most common trip purpose, frequency of travel, and mode of travel.

Most Common Trip Purpose versus Transit Patronage Exhibit B.2.2 illustrates the most common travel patterns of survey respondents versus whether or not they had ridden Roseville Transit within the prior 90 days. The data indicates the vast majority did not utilize Roseville Transit to access their destination.

In terms of riders, medical/social services had the highest share of trips which split evenly with non-riders at 50 percent. In absolute numbers, work had the most riders with seven versus two for medical/social services.

The trip distribution in Exhibit B.2.2 reflects the high number of non-riders in the survey overall rather than riders using the service to access shopping for example. Given the relatively low response rate of the survey, any conclusions drawn about riders should take into account the Onboard Survey which can be found in the previous Section 4.1.

Exhibit B.2.2 Most Common Travel Destination vs. Transit Patronage

100% 90% 80% 50.0% 70%

60% 81.5% 50% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 40% 30% 50.0% 20%

10% 18.5% 0% Work School Shopping Recreational/social Medical/social services

Rider Non-Rider

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 227 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Most Common Trip Purpose vs. Frequency of Travel Exhibit B.2.3 shows the relationship between frequency of trips and typical travel destinations. The survey revealed the trip purposes generating the most trips were work and school, which generated five or more trips per week. The majority shopping trips were made three to four times per week, while medical/social service trips generated the least amount of trips.

The travel patterns shown in Exhibit B.2.3 are what one might reasonably expect for each travel purpose. Work, for example, is typically five days per week (for full-time employees), and therefore respondents would have to travel at least five times per week. Conversely, doctor visits occur with less regularity and therefore do not necessarily require daily trips. The high incidence of work and school trips presents an opportunity for the City to focus on providing fixed-route service to significant popular employment and educational centers.

Exhibit B.2.3 Frequency of Travel vs. Most Common Trip Purpose 100% 90% 20.0% 80% 33.3% 70% 66.7% 60% 74.1% 50% 100.0% 66.7% 40% 30% 66.7% 20% 33.3% 10% 25.9% 13.3% 0% Work School Shopping Recreational/social Medical/social services

1 or 2 times/month 3 - 4 times/ week 5 or more times /week

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 228 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Most Common Trip Purpose vs. Mode of Travel Exhibit B.2.4 indicates the mode respondents use to access typical trip destinations. Across all destination types, the vast majority of respondents indicated drove themselves (50 percent to 100 percent). The only destination with a significant modal split was medial/social services, which saw an even distribution between public transit and friend/family (25 percent each) and drive self predominating with 50 percent. Driving oneself accounted for nearly 78 percent of all work trips.

The findings in Exhibit B.2.4 mirror the findings in Exhibit B.2.2. The high percentage of non- riders (i.e., persons not riding Roseville Transit), suggests the City’s transit service is only used for getting to work and accessing medical/social service locations. This suggests an opportunity for Roseville Transit to attract riders traveling to destinations as medical/social services and shopping. For example, nearly every senior in the survey was a non-rider. The City could undertake a marketing or outreach campaign targeting seniors to encourage the use of Roseville Transit as a means of accessing an array of “life style” destinations.

Exhibit B.2.4 Most Common Trip Purpose vs. Mode of Travel

100% 11.1% 90% 25.0% 11.1% 80%

70% 25.0% 60%

50% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

40% 77.8% 30% 50.0% 20%

10%

0% Work School Shopping Recreational/social Medical/social services

Drive self Friend/family Public transit Carpool/vanpool

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 229 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Current/Recent Rider Travel Behavior As part of the general community surveying process, additional questions were asked of Roseville Transit patrons querying as to recent use of the service (i.e., within the prior 90 days). Responses collected from these questions are in addition to feedback collected during the onboard survey engagement. The result of the community online survey for current riders of Roseville Transit complements those results achieved through the onboard survey.

Customer Satisfaction As illustrated in Exhibit B.2.5, over 62 percent of respondents who used the service in the past 90 days had an excellent experience on Roseville Transit with over 37 percent reporting a good experience with the service. No survey respondents stated having a poor or fair experience. Overall this suggests patrons of Roseville Transit are relatively satisfied with the service.

Additionally Exhibit B.2.5 confirms the finding in the Onboard Survey (Section B.1). While the range of choices is slightly different, the percent of respondents in the Community Survey who held a positive view of Roseville Transit is fairly similar to those in the Onboard Survey. For example, overall satisfaction in the Onboard Survey is 53 percent very satisfied and 32 percent satisfied versus 62 percent in the Community Survey who rated the service excellent and 37 percent good.

Exhibit B.2.5 Customer Satisfaction

37.5%

Excellent Good 62.5%

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 230 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Transit Motivation Exhibit B.2.6 reveals the primary motivation for selecting Roseville Transit as a travel option. The primary motivation among persons who had used the service within the past three months was save money and not having access to a personal vehicle (37 percent each). All other categories split evenly at about 12 percent.

The findings presented in Exhibit B.2.6 generally mirror the findings of the Onboard Survey (Exhibit B.1.8). In both instances, respondents cited saving money as a prime consideration in choosing to ride Roseville Transit. However, convenience surpassed not having access to a personal vehicle as the second most popular choice. The high level of ride-dependency observed amongst Roseville Transit patrons suggest the prime reason for using the service is financial-based.

Exhibit B.2.6 Selection Motivation

Do not have access to a 12.5% personal vehicle 12.5% 37.5% Save money

Preserve the 37.5% environment Do not drive

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 231 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Frequency of Transit Use vs. Selection Motivation Exhibit B.2.7 indicates the decision-making factors influencing transit patronage. For those who frequently use Roseville Transit (defined as four or more times per week), the primary motivation is to save money. Those who ride less often cited not having access to a personal vehicle the most and were split evenly compared with saving money and preserving the environment.

While the sample size is quite small, the fact the results parallel findings from the Onboard Survey (Section B.1), we believe the results are representative of the typical Roseville Transit patron. When not having access to a car is combined with the need to save money, it is reasonable to conclude the typical Roseville Transit rider has a relatively high degree of ride- dependency.

Exhibit B.2.7 Frequency of Use vs. Selection Motivation 100%

90% 25.0% 80% 50.0% 70% 25.0% 60%

50% 100.0%

40%

30% 50.0% 50.0% 20%

10%

0% Less often 1 -3 times/week 4 or more times/ week

Lack access to personal vehicle Save money Preserve the environment

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 232 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Typical Trip Purpose versus Frequency of Transit Use Exhibit B.2.8 identifies the typical trip purpose for Roseville Transit patrons. The more frequent riders (defined as four or more times per week) exclusively use transit to get to work. Riders who ride Roseville Transit one to three times per week use the service equally for work and medical/social services.

The findings in Exhibit B.2.8 diverge from the findings in the Onboard Survey section. As seen in Onboard Survey Analysis, respondents travelled to a wider variety of destinations. However, work still was the single-most popular transit destination.

Exhibit B.2.8 Typical Trip Purpose vs. Frequency of Transit Use 100%

90% 25.0% 80% 50.0% 70%

60%

50% 100.0% 40% 75.0% 30% 50.0% 20%

10%

0% Less often 1 -3 times/week 4 or more times/week

Work Medical/social services

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 233 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Reason for Not Riding Roseville Transit The non-rider category refers to those who have not ridden Roseville Transit within the 90 days prior to the survey. Traditionally persons who are independently mobile are termed “choice riders.” To identify opportunities for attracting “choice riders”, the survey sought to identify respondents the primary reasons for not riding Roseville Transit.

As shown in Exhibit B.2.9, the primary barrier to using the service is respondent’s preference for driving their own car (74 percent). Additionally, the next two choices (routes too far and does not go where I need) also impact transit’s relative competitiveness vis-à-vis the private auto.

Exhibit B.2.9 Barriers to Transit Use

2.2% 2.2% Prefer to drive my car

10.9% Routes are too far from 10.9% my home Does not go where I need 73.9% to travel Costs too much

Does not operate frequently enough

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 234 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Service Improvements The survey asked non-riders which change or improvement might/could motivate them to sample the Roseville Transit service. Similarly, current riders were asked what might cause them to increase their patronage of Roseville Transit patronage. Respondents were able to choose from among an array of possible service enhancements including no change. The five options presented in Exhibit B.2.10 contrast the responses between current and potential riders.

Riders and non-riders had divergent preferences when it came to the desired service enhancement. Among riders, the highest-ranked service enhancement was expanding service to new location (43 percent) while non-riders cited more frequent service (26 percent).

Equally important is the number of non-riders who stated nothing would change their mind. More than half of non-riders chose this option which suggests Roseville Transit may face a challenge attracting “choice riders” (absent significant marketing efforts).

Exhibit B.2.10 Desired Service Change or Improvement Response Percent Attribute Rider Non-Rider Nothing would change my mind 52.2% 14.3% Later service 4.3% 0.0% More frequent service 26.1% 28.6% More service on weekends 8.7% 14.3% Expand service to new location 8.7% 42.9% Total 100.0% 100.0%

Non-Rider Preference for Service Improvements Following the above question, non-riders were asked how many trips per week they would make via Roseville Transit if the desired improvement or change was made. Of the respondents who said nothing would change my mind, 79 percent would not add a single trip. Interestingly, the balance said they would add at least one trip and potentially as much as four trips. This change would likely be due to external factors such as an increase in cost of fuel or change in lifestyle.

Respondents who indicated more frequent service included a large share of non-riders who would consider using Roseville Transit if this service improvement was implemented. Nearly 84 percent of non-riders who cited more frequent service would make between one or three trips per week on Roseville Transit.

Expanding service locations and more service on weekends each had the second most responses at four. These service enhancements have the potential to encourage City residents to shift from single-occupant vehicles to transit. A full 100-percent of respondents who cited expand service to new locations would use Roseville Transit to complete between two and three trips normally completed using another mode. It should be cautioned that the low response rate

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 235 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

means the future research will need to be done to determine appropriate service area expansion.

Note the later service category is skewed due to the very modest number of responses. Only two respondents selected this category, and therefore it is shown as a 50-percent split. While adding later service could improve ridership, more research would need to be undertaken in order to analyze its possible impact on Roseville Transit ridership.

Exhibit B.2.11 Additional Weekly Trips from Non-Riders

100% 4.2% 8.3% 90% 16.7% 8.3% 80% 50.0% 50.0% 70% 60% 41.7%

50% 100.0%

40% 79.2% 30% 50.0% 50.0% 20% 41.7% 10% 0% Nothing would change Later service More frequent service More service on Expand service to new my mind weekends location

None One trip 2-3 trips 3-4 trips More than 5

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 236 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Barriers to Transit Use vs. Service Improvement Exhibit B.2.12 explores the relationship between why non-riders do not use Roseville Transit and what service improvements could encourage non-riders to switch modes. Of the non-riders who prefer to drive their own car, nearly 62 percent said no service improvement would change their mind. The same was nearly true for those citing the service does not go where I need to travel.

This high share of non-riders who would not switch modes no matter the service improvement suggests Roseville Transit would be better served focusing on improving service for existing riders. However, the small sample size means any conclusions about the population at-large should be treated with caution.

Exhibit B.2.12 Barriers to Transit Use vs. Service Improvements 100% 5.9% 90% 20.0%

80% 29.4%

70% 20.0% 2.9% 60% 80.0%

50% 100.0% 100.0%

40%

30% 61.8% 60.0%

20%

10% 20.0%

0% Prefer to drive my car Costs too much Does not operate Routes are too far Does not go where I frequently enough from my home need to travel

Nothing would change my mind Later service More frequent service More service on weekends Expand service to new location

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 237 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Rider Preference for Service Improvements Riders were also queried regarding their preferences for service enhancements. Exhibit B.2.13 presents the results.

Of the current riders, respondents were fairly spilt over their preferred service improvement. The most frequent riders (four or more times per week) cited more weekend service as the preferred service improvement. This is different from the Onboard Survey Analysis (section B.1) which frequent riders favored later evening service above more frequent service. Given the low representation of riders in this sample, the Onboard Survey should be viewed as a guide to identifying rider preferences.

Exhibit B.2.13 Rider Preference for Service Improvements

100% 90% 80% 70% 67% 60% 50% 100% 100% 100% 40% 30% 20% 33% 10% 0% More frequent service More service on Expanded service Nothing would change my weekends locations mind

Less often 1 - 3 times/week 4 or more times/week

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 238 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Service Improvement Preference by Community In addition to gaining insight on to the preferred service improvements of non-riders and riders, our analysis also looked at how each community and cross-street within that community would respond to the menu of service improvements.

Of the three zip codes provided in the survey (95661, 95678, and 95747), the majority of respondents stated no service improvement would change their mind. Only 95747 had an equal number of respondents stating no service improvement would change their mind and more frequent service.

Additional Weekly Trips by Community Exhibit B.2.14 shows the number of additional trips survey respondents might take if their preferred service improvement was implemented. The none choice received the most responses across all communities with a near-equal distribution amongst the three Roseville zip codes.

In terms of respondents who would use Roseville Transit, most fell within the one or two to three trip categories. The 95661 and 95747 zip codes have high representation amongst the two additional trip categories. Based on the above findings, the preferred service improvement in 95747 could potential yield between two or three additional trips per person per week.

Exhibit B.2.14 Additional Weekly Trips by Community

100%

90% 33.3% 33.3% 80% 36.8%

70% 63.6% 8.3% 60%

50% 100.0% 31.6% 40% 50.0% 66.7% 30% 9.1% 9.1% 20% 31.6% 10% 18.2% 8.3% 0% None One trip 2-3 trips 3-4 trips More than 5

No Zip Code 95661 95678 95747

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 239 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Preferred Service Improvement by Age Exhibit B.2.15 shows the preferred service improvement by age. Across the various age categories, those citing 17 to 24 years old and 40 to 50 years old favored a particular service improvement versus those who would never ride transit (nothing would change my mind). Across all age groups there was significant support for more frequent service which is similar to the preference ranking observed in Onboard Survey results. Specifically, the 17 to 24 years old age group represents a potentially receptive market to Roseville Transit especially for commuting to school and/or work.

Exhibit B.2.15 Preferred Service Improvement by Age 100% 9.1% 13.3% 90% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 80% 18.2% 13.3%

70% 9.1% 20.0% 25.0% 60% 33.3% 50%

40% 25.0% 70.0% 30% 63.6% 60.0%

20% 40.0% 25.0% 10%

0% 17 -24 years 25 -39 years 40 -54 years 55 -69 years 70 or older

Nothing would change my mind Later service More frequent service More service on weekends Expand service to new location

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 240 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Additional Weekly Trips by Age Exhibit B.2.16 shows how each age group would potentially respond given the implementation of their preferred service improvement. Given that the 17 to 24 years old and 40 to 50 years old had clearly defined preferences, it is not surprising that these age groups also showed the greatest willingness to use Roseville Transit more (in the case of riders) or to start using the service (non-riders).

Of all the age groups, the 40 to 50 years old cohort has the highest propensity to use transit fairly frequently (an additional two to three trips) where as other age cohorts are more likely to add one additional trip on Roseville Transit. Based on Exhibits B.2.15 and B.2.16, Roseville Transit should consider more frequent service on key routes to boost ridership.

Exhibit B.2.16 Additional Weekly Trips by Age

100% 9.1% 6.7% 10.0% 90% 20.0% 25.0% 10.0% 80% 10.0% 70% 46.7% 20.0% 54.5% 60%

50% 50.0% 20.0%

40% 13.3% 70.0% 30%

20% 40.0% 36.4% 33.3% 10% 25.0%

0% 17 -24 years 25 -39 years 40 - 54 years 55 - 69 years 70 or older

None One trip 2 - 3 trips 3 - 4 trips More than 5

Preferred Service Improvement and Employment Status vs. Age Exhibit B.2.17 explores the relationship between preferred service improvement, employment status, and age. Across the employment status categories, more frequent service was the preferred service enhancement other than nothing would change my mind.

In terms of those employed outside the home (i.e., commuters), more frequent service and more service on weekends were the most favored service improvements. As with the findings in other exhibits throughout this chapter, most survey respondents stated nothing would change their minds regarding using Roseville Transit either more or instead of their personal vehicle.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 241 CITTY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit B.2.17 Preferred Service Improvement and Employment Status vs. Age

100% 16.7% 90% 23.1% 80% 36.4% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 70% 23.1% 60% 50.0% 18.2% 50% 100.0% 40% 30.8% 25.0% 33.3% 30% 45.5% 50.0% 16.7% 50.0% 20% 15.4% 25.0% 10% 16.7% 16.7% 7.7% 0% Employed Outside Not Employed Outside Employed Outside Employed Outside Not Employed Outside Employed Outside Employed Outside Not Employed Outside Home the Home Home Home the Home Home Home the Home

Nothing would change my mind Later service More frequent service More service on Expand service to new location weekends

17 - 24 years 25 - 39 years 40 - 54 years 55 - 69 years 70 or older

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 242 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Community Survey Analysis Key Findings  While over 98 percent of the respondents indicated an unaided awareness of the City’s public transit service, only about 16 percent stated they have ridden Roseville Transit within the 90 days prior to survey contact.  Roseville and Sacramento are the two primary work sites for the residents of Roseville. As such, Roseville Transit’s service area (fixed-route and commuter bus service) is appropriate give travel demand.  Survey revealed the vast majority of respondents did not utilize Roseville Transit to access their destination.  Across all destination types, the vast majority of respondents indicated drove themselves (50 percent to 100 percent).  Over 62 percent of respondents who used the service in the past 90 days had an excellent experience on Roseville Transit with over 37 percent reporting a good experience with the service. No respondent held an unfavorable view of Roseville Transit.  For those who frequently use Roseville Transit (defined as four or more times per week), the primary motivation is to save money.  The primary barrier to using the service is respondent’s preference for driving their own car (74 percent).  Over half of non-riders stated nothing would change their minds with regard to service improvements. This suggests Roseville Transit will have great difficulty attracting “choice riders.”  The high proportion of non-riders who would not switch modes no matter the service improvement suggests Roseville Transit would be better served focusing on improving service for existing riders.  The most frequent riders (four or more times per week) cited more weekend service as the preferred service improvement.  Only zip code 95747 had an equal number of respondents stating no service improvement would change their mind and more frequent service.  Based on the above findings, the preferred service improvement in 95747 could potential yield between two or three additional trips per person per week.  The 17 to 24 years old cohort represents a potentially receptive market to Roseville Transit especially for commuting to school and/or work.  Based on Exhibits 4.2.15 and 4.2.16, the City should consider more frequent service on key routes to boost ridership.  In terms of those employed outside the home (i.e., commuters), more frequent service and more service on weekends were the most favored service improvements.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 243 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

SECTION B.3 – PUBLIC WORKSHOPS

To further elicit public input regarding the Short Range Transit Plan development process, workshops were convened in five communities throughout Western Placer County. The goal of the workshops was to encourage public involvement throughout the entire planning process, both before and after the development of service recommendations.

Public Workshops Public workshops were held following the completion of customer (onboard) and general community (web-based) surveys. Workshops consisted of an overview of the project and its goals, Roseville Transit’s services, key findings from the customer and community surveys, and a questions and answer session. The first round of meetings was held in Auburn, Lincoln, and Roseville on November 2, 2010; and in Loomis and Rocklin on November 3, 2010. These meetings were held in conjunction with the Placer County Transportation Planning Agency “unmet transit needs” public hearing.

Promotion of the workshops included an online flyer linked to the PCTPA website, an ad in the local newspaper, and flyers distributed to stakeholders and various agencies throughout Placer County to share with their members and/or constituents.

The workshops generated a number of key findings specific to Roseville Transit operations and services:  Desire for Dial-A-Ride service to go to Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) or Health & Human Services in Rocklin.  There is a desire to expand Roseville Transit service to Eskaton Village, a 48-unit affordable senior (ages 62 and older) housing community located in Roseville. It was noted that Route M used to service this area but has since been re-routed to service Fairway. Referring to Lassen County example, request was for a service which served this area one to three times per week.  Concern arose regarding Dial-A-Ride driver wait times – patron was left at their doctor’s appointment by Dial-A-Ride driver.  Review bus stop placement to ensure customers are able to access transit within a walkable distance.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 244 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

C. SURVEY CINSTRUMENTS

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 245 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

‘ PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 246 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

APPENDIX C.1: ONBOARD SURVEY INSTRUMENT (ENGLISH)

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 247 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

APPENDIX C.2: ONBOARD SURVEY INSTRUMENT (SPANISH)

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 248 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

D. COMMUNITY DSURVEY RESULTS

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 249 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 250 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

APPENDIX D: COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS (ENGLISH)

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 251 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 252 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 253 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 254 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 255 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 256 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 257 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 258 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 259 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 260 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 261 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 262 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

E. PEER E REVIEW

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 263 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 264 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

APPENDIX E: PEER REVIEW

SECTION E.1 – PERFORMANCE PEER REVIEW

In this section we compared Roseville Transit’s performance with selected transit operators through a performance peer review. A peer review utilizes a quantitative methodology for assessing how efficiently and effectively a public transit program is in providing service compared with peer transit providers. Effectiveness is defined as the extent by which a service is achieving its intended goals. By contrast, efficiency is the amount of resources required to achieve the reported outcome. In addition to the peer comparison an existing service evaluation is presented to provide an overview of other transit programs in the region.

Our analysis examines the level of service each peer provides relative to the size of its service area and the number of persons residing therein. The peers include cities with similar population and demographics, which includes the Cities of Thousand Oaks, Folsom, and Fairfield. All peer data reflect actual FY 2008/2009 performance.

Selected Peers The Peer Review compares Roseville Transit’s key performance indicators for FY 2008/09 with those of Thousand Oaks Transit (TOT), Folsom Stage Lines, and Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST). The peers were chosen based on transit services offered, service square miles, and service area population. The following exhibit shows population and income characteristics for Roseville and the selected peers. The cities of Folsom and Thousand Oaks are the most similar in population characteristics, all with populations of over 100,000. In addition, all of the peers have similar youth and senior population proportions. When looking at median household income, Roseville relates most with the cities of Suisun City and Fairfield, all at around $70,000.

Exhibit E.1.1 Selected Peer Characteristics Youth (age 6 to 17 Senior (age 65 and Median Total years) older) Median HH Income Age Community Population Number Percent Number Percent (2009 ACS) Fairfield 105,321 33.7 20,710 20% 10,775 10% $69,001 Folsom 72,203 37.6 13,139 18% 6,909 10% $94,427 Roseville 118,788 36.8 23,166 20% 15,867 13% $74,128 Suisun City 28,111 33 5,627 20% 2,156 8% $70,958 Thousand Oaks 126,683 41.5 23,461 19% 18,564 15% $98,652 Source: 2010 Census

The table below presents the primary service characteristics of the selected peer’s transit systems. The data is system-wide, which includes fixed-route, Dial-A-Ride, and other special

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 265 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

services such as commuter and/or shuttles. As illustrated in Exhibit E.1.2, the average performance of the peers matches that of Roseville Transit for all measures.

Exhibit E.1.2 Peer Transit System Characteristics Thousand Peer System Fairfield/Suisun Folsom Oaks Average Roseville Performance Measures Operating Cost $9,291,307 $3,824,992 $2,376,030 $5,164,110 $4,715,565 Fare Revenue $2,105,682 $93,160 $230,448 $809,763 $852,355 Annual Vehicle Service Miles 1,953,306 221,660 668,042 947,669 839,199 Annual Vehicle Service Hours 94,196 16,587 46,372 52,385 58,887 Annual Unlinked Trips 1,011,050 100,251 257,345 456,215 433,957

City of Roseville - Roseville Transit Roseville Transit provides intra-city bus service, dial-a-ride service, and commuter bus service to Sacramento. The day-to-day operation of transit services is contracted to MV Transportation. Roseville Transit offers 10 fixed-route alignments within Roseville which run weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and on Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Roseville Transit fares are $1.50 for the general public and 75 cents for senior, youth and persons with disabilities (refer to Section B Fare Comparison and Analysis).

In addition to fixed route and commuter services, Roseville Transit also offers a general- public/ADA Dial-A-Ride service. The service operates within the city limits of Roseville with the same service hours as fixed route service for weekdays and Saturday.

City of Thousand Oaks – Thousand Oaks Transit Thousand Oaks Transit (TOT) provides local bus service in Ventura County and contracts with MV Transportation to operate the various services. The TOT system includes four fixed-route alignments and a Dial-A-Ride program, both of which serve residents within Thousand Oaks. Each of the four routes includes deviations for commuters and students alike during peak hours. Route 1 offers a “Commuter Peak Service” (Route1B) from 6:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Route 2 offers a “Student Peak Service” (Route 2B) from 7:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Routes 3 and 4 also operate a “Commuter Peak Service” (Routes 3B and 4B) from 7:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. Regular hours of operation are weekdays, 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. for the fixed-route service and weekdays, 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and weekends, 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. for Dial-A-Ride.

Regular adult fares for Thousand Oaks Transit fixed-routes are $1.00 per trip; 75 cents for students ages 6-18, 50 cents for seniors, persons with disabilities, or Medicare card holders; and free for children under six. Transfers on TOT cost 15 cents. Additionally, TOT offers weekly passes of $8.00 for adults and $4.00 for seniors and disabled persons, student “Value Packs” (40-Trip Packets) are available for purchase to students ages 6-18 for $26.00. Thousand Oaks

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 266 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Transit also accepts the Go Ventura Smart Card, a county-wide bus pass that is accepted by 24 transit providers throughout Ventura County. Adult and student fares for this card are $50.00 and $25.00 for seniors and persons with disabilities.

Thousand Oaks Transit operates a Senior Dial-A-Ride program for seniors (age 62 and older) residing in Thousand Oaks as well as the nearby unincorporated communities of Newbury Park, Lynn Ranch, Rolling Oaks, Hidden Valley, and Lake Sherwood. The fare per trip is $1.50 and a Dial-A-Ride card is required for those who wish to use the service. TOT also operates an ADA paratransit service for persons with a disability residing within the city limits of Thousand Oaks and the county’s unincorporated areas of Newbury Park, Lynn Ranch, Rolling Oaks, Hidden Valley, Lake Sherwood, and Oak Park. Fare is $1.50 for each trip within the city limits and unincorporated service area. Intercity service is also offered through an agreement between TOT and the other transit providers within Ventura County. The cost for a one-way intercity trip costs a minimum of $3.00 and a maximum of $6.00.

Thousand Oaks Transit’s service area population is similar to that of Roseville, yet its service offerings are less extensive and do not include a commuter bus service. TOT coordinates with various commuter and regional services that do offer transportation throughout Ventura County and downtown Los Angeles such as LADOT Commuter Express (downtown Los Angeles from Thousand Oaks), Ventura County VISTA bus, Metro Local Bus, Amtrak train, as well as other local connecting bus services.

City of Folsom The City of Folsom operates fixed-route public transit service through the Folsom Stage Lines, as well as a Dial-A-Ride program for senior adults (age 55 years or older) and persons with a disabilities.

Folsom Stage Line routes operate Monday through Friday between 6:11 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. with no weekend service available. Folsom Stage Line is comprised of two fixed-routes (Routes 10 and 20) which intersect at Folsom Lake College. In addition to connecting with Route 20, Route 10 links with the Light Rail Gold Line as well as Sacramento Regional Transit at select transfer points. Adult fixed-route one-way fare is priced at $2.50, with seniors and students receiving a discount of 50 percent off the adult base fare.

Folsom’s Dial-A-Ride service is a curb-to-curb eligibility-based service for persons with physical, developmental, or mental disabilities, and seniors (age 55 or older) unable to utilize the traditional fixed-route system. The service runs Monday through Friday between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., with no weekend service available.

Folsom’s transit offerings are much more modest than that of Roseville, serving a smaller less transit-dependent population. Folsom’s transit program feeds into regional commuter services to downtown Sacramento and also circulates around a local community college.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 267 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Fairfield and Suisun Transit Fairfield and Suisun Transit, or FAST, is the local transit system for the Cities of Fairfield and Suisun City, also operating many of the Solano Express regional routes. Administrative oversight is provided by the City of Fairfield. However, day-to-day operations and maintenance is provided by the contract operator, MV Transportation. FAST offers several different services including a fixed-route system with local and intercity express routes, as well as a demand- response paratransit service. Services are available Monday through Saturday, with no service on Sunday and designated holidays.

FAST has nine local fixed-routes and four intercity express routes. Express service is offered along four routes Monday through Friday, connecting to Sacramento, Vacaville, Dixon, Davis, and Benicia, as well as a number of BART stations in the adjoining East Bay. These express buses operate as a commuter service.

Together Fairfield and Suisun City serve a population slightly larger than Roseville, similar to that of Thousand Oaks. The local fixed-route structure is similar in size and scope to Roseville, and also serves an area with low-density development. However, the difference in Roseville Transit and FAST is FAST express/commuter services cover more miles, spanning a distance of 40-mile one-way trips to Sacramento.

Peer Performance Review The following is a comparison of system-wide performance of the selected peer’s transit systems, as well as a breakdown comparison of each system’s individual services such as fixed-route, commuter, and Dial-A-Ride. Exhibit E.1.3 illustrates each peer’s performance indicators and presents an average of the peers to compare with Roseville Transit. As can be seen, in most categories, Roseville Transit performs relatively well, nearly matching each indicator of the average of peers.

Exhibit E.1.3 System Key Indicators Roseville Transit Peer Review Fairfield / Thousand System- Suisun Folsom Oaks Peer Average Roseville Performance Measures Operating Cost $9,291,307 $3,824,992 $2,376,030 $3,824,992 $4,715,565 Fare Revenue $2,105,682 $93,160 $230,448 $93,160 $852,355 Annual Vehicle Service Miles 1,953,306 221,660 668,042 $221,660 839,199 Annual Vehicle Service Hours 94,196 16,587 46,372 $16,587 58,887 Annual Unlinked Trips 1,011,050 100,251 257,345 $100,251 433,957 Performance Indicators Operating Cost/Vehicle Service Hour $98.64 $230.60 $51.24 $230.60 $80.08 Operating Cost/Vehicle Service Mile $4.76 $17.26 $3.56 $17.26 $5.62 Operating Cost/Passenger $9.19 $38.15 $9.23 $38.15 $10.87 Passengers/Vehicle Service Hour 10.73 6.04 5.55 6.04 7.37 Passengers/Vehicle Service Mile 0.52 0.45 0.39 0.45 0.52 Farebox Recovery Ratio 22.7% 2.4% 9.7% 2.4% 18.1% Fare/Passenger $2.08 $0.93 $0.90 $0.93 $1.96

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 268 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Operating Cost/Vehicle Service Hours Roseville Transit’s Operating Cost/VSH is $80.08, slightly below the peer average ($98.58) and Fairfield/Suisun Transit ($98.63). This indicates Roseville is operating as, or more, efficiently than transit operators serving similar service areas. The City of Folsom had the highest Cost/VSH at $230.60. Note, the City of Folsom provided an annual budget for their operating cost, which may reflect a much higher cost ratio than in actuality.

Exhibit E.1.4 System Operating Cost/Vehicle Service Hours $250.00 $230.60

$200.00

$150.00

$98.64 $100.00 $98.58 $80.08

$51.24 $50.00

$0.00 Thousand Oaks Folsom Fairfield Roseville Operating Cost/Vehicle Service Hour Peer Average

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 269 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Operating Cost/Vehicle Service Miles The following compares Operating Cost per VSM for each peer and Roseville Transit. Roseville Transit’s Operating Cost/VSM is slightly higher than the peer average of $5.45, and is also higher than both Fairfield/Suisun Transit and Thousand Oaks Transit. Although this could be explained by the fact TOT has much lower vehicle service miles, they also have much lower operating cost than both Roseville and Fairfield/Suisun. The FAST system has triple the ridership but only double the miles than Roseville, maintaining a lower Operating Cost/VSM. Again, the City of Folsom may reflect a much higher cost than the cost of actual operations.

Exhibit E.1.5 System-wide Operating Cost/Vehicle Service Miles $20.00

$18.00 $17.26

$16.00

$14.00

$12.00

$10.00

$8.00

$6.00 $5.62 $5.45 $4.76 $4.00 $3.56

$2.00

$0.00 Thousand Oaks Folsom Fairfield Roseville Operating Cost/Vehicle Service Mile Peer Average

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 270 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Operating Cost/Passenger As presented in the chart below, Roseville Transit’s Operating Cost per Passenger was slightly higher than that of most its peers. As was assessed in the previous two operating cost metrics, Roseville Transit is below the peer average but slightly higher than both TOT and FAST. Again, this may be attributed to the fact FAST ridership per operating cost is higher than Roseville Transit, however, TOT has much lower ridership than Roseville Transit and yet maintains a reasonable level of operating cost.

Exhibit E.1.6 System Operating Cost/Passenger $45.00

$40.00 $38.15

$35.00

$30.00

$25.00

$20.00

$15.00 $11.32 $10.87 $11.32 $10.00 $9.19 $9.23

$5.00

$0.00 Thousand Oaks Folsom Fairfield Roseville Operating Cost/Passenger Peer Average

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 271 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Passengers/Vehicle Service Hours Exhibit E.1.7 shows the number of passengers for every hour vehicles are in service. FAST had the highest number of Passengers/VSH at 10.73, while Roseville Transit was second at 7.37. Given Roseville Transit and Thousand Oaks Transit offer similar levels of vehicle service hours, this reflects positively for Roseville and their passenger levels compared to hours of service.

Exhibit E.1.7 System Passengers/Vehicle Service Hours 12.00

10.73

10.00

8.71 8.00 7.37

6.04 6.00 5.55

4.00

2.00

0.00 Thousand Oaks Folsom Fairfield Roseville Passengers/Vehicle Service Hour Peer Average

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 272 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Passengers/Vehicle Service Miles Exhibit E.1.8 presents the number of passengers for every mile of service provided. Fairfield/Suisun and Roseville had the highest at .52 Passengers per VSM, which was above the peer average (0.48). Roseville Transit operates with slightly more vehicle service miles than TOT, yet with 43 percent fewer miles than FAST. The City of Folsom operates relatively well, however their vehicle service miles are 26 percent that of Roseville Transit. Again, this metric highlights the efficiencies of Roseville Transit.

Exhibit E.1.8 System Passengers/Vehicle Service Miles 0.60

0.52 0.52 0.50 0.48 0.45

0.40 0.39

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00 Thousand Oaks Folsom Fairfield Roseville Passengers/Vehicle Service Mile Peer Average

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 273 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Farebox Recovery Ratio Exhibit E.1.9 presents the farebox recovery ratio for each peer’s transit system. Compared to its peers Roseville Transit performs above average. FAST had the highest farebox recovery ratio at 22.7 percent, indicating fare revenue in relation to operation cost is high, reflecting the efficiency of the transit service. When looking at fares, FAST charges less for its fixed-route services than Roseville, and around the same amount for its commuter services than Roseville. This appears to be a reflection of ridership levels and cost-efficiency.

Exhibit E.1.9 System Farebox Recovery Ratio 25.0% 22.7%

20.0% 18.1%

15.7% 15.0%

9.7% 10.0%

5.0%

2.4%

0.0% Thousand Oaks Folsom Fairfield Roseville Farebox Recovery Ratio Peer Average

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 274 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Fare per Passenger Exhibit E.1.10 shows the Fare/Passenger for each peer. Roseville ranks second in Fare/Passenger, remaining above the peer average of $1.77. This suggests Roseville’s fare structure is competitive to that of its peers and is sufficient for the size of the system. Again, when looking at fare comparisons of FAST and Roseville Transit, they are similar; however, the cost of riding FAST express service to destinations (zones) as far as Sacramento is double the price of a ride on Roseville Transit’s commuter service. This may indicate ridership on FAST’s express/commuter routes to Davis and Sacramento is very high.

Exhibit E.1.10 System Fare per Passenger $2.50

$2.08 $1.96 $2.00

$1.77

$1.50

$1.00 $0.93 $0.90

$0.50

$0.00 Thousand Oaks Folsom Fairfield Roseville Fare per Passenger Peer Average

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 275 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

SECTION E.2 – FARE COMPARISON AND ANALYSIS

This section reviews Roseville Transit’s existing fare structure and compares it with other transit operators located within northern California. The fare analysis concludes Roseville Transit’s fares are competitive with its peers, providing categories and pricing similar to other northern California providers, yet higher than the County’s and Auburn’s public transit programs. However, it is being recommended within the City of Auburn SRTP to implement a fare increase.

Fare Structures and Policies As presented in “the TCRP’s Fare Policies, Structures, and Technologies: Update,” fare structures are composed of three basic elements: fare strategy, payment options, and pricing levels.7 Fare strategy refers to two general categories: flat and differentiated. Through a flat rate fare structure, which is offered by Roseville Transit, a flat fee is charged for the service regardless of service day, quality of service, or length of trip. Alternatively, differentiated fares are often zone-based, service-based, or time-based. Although differentiated base fares may provide more efficiency by covering the operating cost to cover lengthier trips or service, flat rate fares provide simplicity and ease, a quality more conducive to the needs of Roseville customers.

Roseville Transit provides cash and period passes for customers to use. As illustrated in the following table (Exhibit E.2.1), Roseville payment options include cash single-ride fares as well as a daily and monthly passes, and a 20-ride ticket book. With purchase of these payment options, the pricing levels established offer discounts comparable to the relatively low single-ride fare.

In addition to establishing a fare structure reflective of the system’s service offerings, many transit agencies have a regular fare review process triggered by revenue shortfall, introduction or restructuring of a major route or service, and installation of new technology. Given the preceding, Roseville Transit may want to consider adopting a formalized fare review process triggered by the abovementioned criteria.

Since 2005, when the last fare comparison analysis was conducted by LSC Transportation Consultants, Roseville Transit’s base fare was $1.30, and has since been raised to $1.50. This change impacted each of the corresponding period pass categories, raising the monthly pass from $50.00 to $58.00. Fares for youth, seniors, and persons with disabilities were also increased by 10 cents. Exhibit E.2.1 presents the most recent fare media and costs for Roseville Transit services.

7 Multisystems, Inc., Mundle & Associates, Simon & Simon Research and Associates, Inc. TCRP Report 94: Fare Policies, Structure, and Technologies: Update. (Washington D.C., 2003).

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 276 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit E.2.1 Roseville Transit Fare Structure Fixed-Route Category Fare General Public $1.50 Senior/Disabled/Medicare/Student $0.75 Ages 4 and under Free Other Fare Media Category Fare Daily Pass (General Public) $4.00 S/D/M/S Daily Pass $2.00 20-Ride Book (General Public) $30.00 S/D/M/S 20-Ride Book $15.00 Monthly Pass (General Public) $58.00 S/D/M/S Monthly Pass $29.00 Summer Youth Bus Pass (Student) $10.00

Based on onboard survey results presented in Section B.1, 44 percent of survey respondents indicated a willingness to pay an additional 25 cents to ride Roseville Transit. Alternatively, nearly 38 percent would not support a fare increase, suggesting a majority of riders would not be willing to pay over 25 cents more than the existing fare. Onboard Survey Analysis further revealed respondents who use the service more than twice a week are more likely to utilize a 20-ride ticket book and monthly pass when compared with first-time riders or those using the service 1-4 times per month. However, the percentage (16 percent) remains far lower than anticipated for the 20-ride ticket book in spite of the discount or cost-savings (approximately 23 percent of single cash fare) earned when using non-cash fare media.

Again, the City should focus on encouraging the use of multi-trip passes and ticket books. Marketing the types of fare media could help realize cost savings to patrons, thereby reducing the burden of carrying exact fare for each trip and hence increase ridership. In the long run, the less time drivers spend collecting cash fare, the less time needed for passenger loading.

In reviewing Roseville Transit’s fare structure, we compiled fare structure data from neighboring transit operators located in northern California. The following group of 27 transit operators (see Exhibit E.2.2) included in this analysis was also used in the Roseville Transit Fare Study completed in 2006.

Fixed Route Peer Fare Analysis Single Ride As illustrated in Exhibit E.2.2, Roseville Transit regular cash fare is approximately three percent below the peer average ($1.55). Compared with other transit operators in the region, youth fare remains almost half the peer average ($1.12), while senior/disabled/Medicare single-ride fare remains close to the average (79 cents). This suggests Roseville Transit’s single-ride fares

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 277 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

remain competitive with its peers, offering a greater discount for youth than offered by other similar sized operators. Roseville Transit also operates a Summer Youth Bus Pass for $10.00, valid from June 1 through August 31. The Youth Pass is available to youth ages 5 to 18 years of age and provides unlimited Local service rides on western Placer County transit services, including Roseville Transit.

Daily Pass Of the operators who provide day passes as a fare media option, Roseville Transit is lower than the peer average at $4.33. At $4.00, Roseville Transit ranks sixth amongst its peers in terms of pricing for the fixed-route service it provides. Similarly, San Joaquin Regional Transit District charges $4.00 for a daily pass; however, San Joaquin RTD offers more intra- and intercity routes than Roseville Transit.

20-Ride Ticket Book As presented in the onboard survey (Section B.1), nearly 16 percent of patrons use the 20-ride ticket book as their primary method of payment. Considering transit operators vary significantly with respect to their fare payment options, the 20-ride ticket book was not compared with other transit operators.

Monthly Pass Compared with other transit operators in the region, Roseville Transit has an average monthly pass savings lower than the peer average (34.4 percent). Roseville Transit’s monthly pass fare is priced higher than 60 percent of the 26 providers who offer monthly passes. As presented in the onboard survey (Section B.1), monthly pass holders comprised approximately 13 percent of survey respondents, suggesting a need to increase marketing of the pass and its subsequent discount. Although Roseville Transit has a lower monthly pass savings, advertising to, or educating, riders they can receive over a 20 percent discount, in addition to not having to carry exact change, may facilitate interest in multiple-ride fare media. Expanding use of the Monthly Pass can result in reduced administrative burden associated with counting and sorting cash fare.

Connect Transit Card In the summer of 2012, the Sacramento Council of Governments (SACOG) will launch the Connect Transit Card program as a pilot project. It is anticipated for the program to enter into full operation by spring 2013. A consortium was formed of local participating operators including:  Sacramento Regional Transit,  El Dorado Transit,  City of Elk Grove’s e-tran,  City of Folsom’s Folsom Stage line,  Yolobus, and  Yuba-Sutter Transit.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 278 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

At the time of this report, Roseville Transit and Placer County Transit were provided the option to participate in the program within one year of a final contract acceptance. The system was developed to allow for flexibility so potential exists for other transit services to join in the future if they so desired.

As mentioned above in the Service Plan chapter, the City is interested in pursuing or participating in the Connect Card system, with hopes of integrating an electronic fare media into the existing fare structure. The Connect Card system will include a proximity smart card embedded with a computer chip which will be read by an on-vehicle or in-station card reader.

The system should enhance regional connectivity through providing more ease in transfer and seamless connections. The following text was taken verbatim from the SACOG June 9, 2011 board agenda as part of Attachments B and C.

The Connect Card will allow transit users to pre-pay their fares in a variety of ways and to pay fares on a combination of transit systems with a single card. While specific options will vary from system to system and are yet to be finalized, it is likely that the card will allow users to:  Establish a cash purse which can be used to pay individual fares.  Pay for unlimited rides over a specified time period (day, month, week, half month, etc.) on one or a combination of systems.  Pay for a set number of rides (i.e., 10-ride, 20-ride, etc.) and possibly receive a discount for advance payment.  Take advantage of transfer agreements between participating systems without the need for a paper transfer.

Users will be able to purchase fares to be added to their Connect Transit Card in a variety of convenient ways:  On the Connect Card website (coming soon), and via linkages from system websites,  By telephone,  At designated outlets, and  At Connect Card vending machines at transit centers and stations.

Users will also be able to set up automated reload functions (e.g. monthly) or when their card balance reaches a specified threshold (e.g., payment for one ride left). By registering their card on the Connect Card website, users will have access to additional benefits, particularly loss protection. If their card is lost or stolen, they will be able to have the card deactivated and the remaining balance transferred to a new card.

A primary audience for the Connect Card communications effort will be current transit users who must be converted to the new fair medium. They are expected to benefit in a variety of ways.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 279 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

 Can connect between area transit systems without having to use multiple fare media or request a paper transfer.  Can easily purchase fares in the medium that is most advantageous to them…time based, trip based or cash purse.  Can easily purchase fares for any of the participating transit systems through a wide variety of “outlets” – on-line, by phone, vending machines, storefront or automatic reload – choosing the one most convenient for them.  By registering their card they can have the benefits of loss protection, as well as the ability to check their card balance or track usage.

SACOG will release a Request for Proposals for a Marketing Plan to hire a public relations firm shortly after Primary Vendor contract award. The Marketing Plan will guide marketing and communications efforts throughout implementation.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 280 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit E.2.2 Fixed-Route Fare Comparison Single-Ride Day Pass Monthly Pass Monthly Pass Discount* Farebox Change Since Senior/ Senior/ Senior/ Senior/ Recovery Provider Prior SRTP? Regular Youth Disabled Regular Youth Disabled Regular Youth Disabled Regular Youth Disabled Ratio** Auburn Transit No $0.80 $0.60 $0.60 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $18.00 $18.00 $18.00 55.0% 40.0% 40.0% 7.9% Benicia Transit (Within Benicia) Yes $1.75 $1.75 $0.85 - - - $55.20 $43.20 $27.60 36.9% 50.6% 35.1% 11.0% El Dorado Transit Yes $1.50 $0.75 $0.75 - - - $60.00 $30.00 $30.00 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 24.0% Fairfield-Suisun Transit (Local Fare) Yes $1.25 $1.25 $0.75 - - - $50.00 $50.00 $25.00 20.0% 20.0% 33.3% 27.0% Folsom Stage Yes $2.50 $1.25 $1.25 - - - - $50.00 $50.00 - 20.0% 20.0% 7.0% Fresno Area Express Yes $1.25 - $0.60 - - - $48.00 - $24.00 23.2% - 20.0% 25.0% Golden Empire Transit District (Bakersfield) Yes $1.25 - $0.75 $3.00 - $1.50 $35.00 - $20.00 44.0% - 46.7% 24.0% Lincoln Transit Yes $1.00 $0.75 $0.75 - - - $20.00 - $15.00 60.0% - 60.0% 3.0% Monterey-Salinas Transit Yes $2.00 $1.00 $1.00 $8.00 $4.00 $4.00 $75.00 $37.00 $37.00 25.0% 26.0% 26.0% 30.0% Petaluma Transit Yes $1.25 $1.00 $0.50 - - - $30.00 $20.00 $15.00 52.0% 60.0% 40.0% 10.0% Placer County Transit Yes $1.25 $0.60 $0.60 $2.50 $1.25 $1.25 $37.50 $18.75 $18.75 40.0% 37.5% 37.5% 6.5% Roseville Transit Yes $1.50 $0.75 $0.75 $4.00 $2.00 $2.00 $58.00 $29.00 $29.00 22.7% 22.7% 22.7% 9.5% Sacramento Regional Transit Yes $2.50 $1.25 $1.25 $6.00 $3.00 $3.00 $100.00 $50.00 $50.00 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 19.0% SamTrans (San Mateo County) Yes $2.00 $1.25 $1.00 - - - $64.00 $36.00 $25.00 36.0% 42.4% 50.0% 14.0% San Joaquin Regional Transit District Yes $1.50 $1.25 $0.75 $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 $65.00 $40.00 $30.00 13.3% 36.0% 20.0% 19.0% San Rosa CityBus Yes $1.25 $1.00 $0.60 - - - $40.00 $20.00 $20.00 36.0% 60.0% 33.3% 20.0% Santa Cruz METRO No $1.50 $1.50 $0.75 $4.50 $4.50 $2.25 $50.00 $35.00 $25.00 33.3% 53.3% 33.3% 26.0% Sonoma County Transit Yes $1.25 $1.05 $0.60 - - - $60.00 $45.00 $30.00 4.0% 14.3% 0.0% 17.0% Tahoe Area Regional Transit Yes $1.75 $0.85 $0.85 $3.50 $1.75 $1.75 $53.00 $26.00 $26.00 39.4% 38.8% 38.8% 17.0% Union City Transit Yes $1.75 $1.00 $0.75 - - - $46.00 $29.00 $19.00 47.4% 42.0% 49.3% 14.0% Unitrans (Davis) Yes $1.00 - - - - - $25.00 - - 50.0% - - 57.0% Vacaville City Coach Yes $1.50 $1.25 $0.75 $3.25 $3.25 $2.00 $45.00 $28.00 $25.00 40.0% 55.2% 33.3% 17.0% Vallejo Transit Yes $1.75 $1.75 $0.85 - - - $55.20 $43.20 $27.60 36.9% 50.6% 35.1% 47.0% VTA (Santa Clara County) Yes $2.00 $1.75 $1.00 $6.00 $5.00 $2.50 $70.00 $45.00 $25.00 30.0% 48.6% 50.0% 13.0% Westcat (W. Contra Costa County) Yes $1.75 $1.75 $0.75 $3.50 $3.50 $1.50 $40.00 $20.00 $20.00 54.3% 77.1% 46.7% 28.0% Yolobus Yes $2.00 $1.00 $1.00 $6.00 $3.00 $3.00 $85.00 $42.00 $42.00 15.0% 16.0% 16.0% 28.0% Yuba-Sutter Transit No $1.00 $0.50 $0.50 - - - $30.00 $5.00 $15.00 40.0% 80.0% 40.0% 26.0% AVERAGE $1.55 $1.12 $0.79 $4.33 $3.02 $2.21 $50.57 $33.05 $26.50 34.4% 40.5% 33.4% 20.3% *Assumes 50 trips per month. **Source: California State Controller's Office; Data for all providers is from 2009 except Auburn, Roseville, and PCT.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 281 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit E.2.3 Fixed Route Fare Comparison

Yuba-Sutter Transit $1.00 Yolobus $2.00 Westcat (W. Contra Costa County) $1.75 VTA (Santa Clara County) $2.00 Vallejo Transit $1.75 Vacaville City Coach $1.50 Unitrans (Davis) $1.00 Union City Transit $1.75 Tahoe Area Regional Transit $1.75 Sonoma County Transit $1.25 Santa Cruz METRO $1.50 Sant Rosa CityBus $1.25 San Joaquin Regional Transit District $1.50 SamTrans (San Mateo County) $2.00 Sacramento Regional Transit $2.50 Roseville Transit $1.50 Placer County Transit $1.25 Petaluma Transit $1.25 Monterey-Salinas Transit $2.00 Lincoln Transit $1.00 Golden Empire Transit District (Bakersfield) $1.25 Fresno Area Express $1.25 Folsom Stage $2.50 Fairfield-Suisun Transit (Local Fare) $1.25 El Dorado Transit $1.50 Benicia Transit (Within Benicia) $1.75 Auburn Transit $0.80

$0.00 $0.50 $1.00 $1.50 $2.00 $2.50 $3.00 Base Full Fare (One-Way Trip)

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 282 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Commuter Peer Fare Analysis In addition to analysis of fixed-route fares, peer commuter bus service fares were compared with/to Roseville Transit’s Commuter service fares. Of the 27 operators analyzed above who provide fixed-route services, 15 of those peers operate some form of commuter or express intercity services. It should be noted some of these commuter services vary greatly in service area and coverage. Some commuter services, such as the Placer Commuter Express and San Joaquin Regional Transit, charge different fares depending upon the distance of travel, or zone changes. To illustrate the cost differences in these zones, Exhibit F.4 shows a minimum and maximum fare for those with several zones.

Because of the nature of commuter services, many operators in the peer review, including Roseville Transit, do not offer day passes or ticket books for their commuter services. Therefore, only single ride fares and monthly passes were included in analysis.

Single Ride Every operator with commuter or intercity express services offered a single-ride base cash fare. As shown in Exhibit E.2.4, the average base cash fare for commuter services of the peers reviewed is $4.67, over $1.00 more than Roseville Transit’s Commuter single-ride fare. Out of the peers, Roseville Transit was the fifth least-costly single-ride base cash fare. The lowest were Benicia Transit and Sonoma County Transit (for Zone 1). However, Sonoma County Transit operates across five different zones for its intercity services.

Monthly Pass When looking at monthly pass fares for peer commuter services in Exhibit E.2.4, Roseville Transit is well below average in cost by about $18.00. Although the monthly pass is less costly, Roseville Transit’s monthly pass discount is less than most of the peers. This could be explained by the low-cost of the single-ride base fare for Roseville Transit.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 283 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit E.2.4 Commuter Fare Comparison Matrix Single-Ride Day Pass Monthly Pass Monthly Pass Discount* Senior/ Senior/ Senior/ Senior/ Operator Regular Youth Disabled Regular Youth Disabled Regular Youth Disabled Regular Youth Disabled Benicia Transit $1.75 $1.75 $0.85 $4.50 $4.50 $2.25 $90.00 $81.00 $45.00 -2.86% 7.43% -5.88% El Dorado Transit $5.00 - - - - - $180.00 - - 28.00% - - Fairfield-Suisun Transit (Min. zone fare) $2.75 - $1.25 - - - $70.00 - $35.00 49.09% - 44.00% Fairfield-Suisun Transit (Max. zone fare) $6.75 - $3.25 - - - $150.00 - $75.00 55.56% - 53.85% Monterey-Salinas Transit $10.00 $5.00 $5.00 $8.00 $4.00 $4.00 $150.00 $75.00 $75.00 70.00% 70.00% 70.00% Placer Commuter Express (Min. zone fare) $4.25 - - - - - $131.25 - - 38.24% - - Placer Commuter Express (Max. zone fare) $5.75 - - - - - $178.50 - - 37.91% - - Roseville Transit $3.25 - - - - - $110.00 - - 32.31% - - SamTrans (San Mateo County) $5.00 - - - - - $165.00 $36.00 $25.00 34.00% - - San Joaquin Regional Transit District (Min. zone fare) $7.00 - - $14.00 - - $132.00 - - 62.29% - - San Joaquin Regional Transit District (Max. zone fare) $7.00 - - $14.00 - - $213.00 - - 39.14% - - Santa Cruz METRO $5.00 $5.00 $2.50 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $113.00 $113.00 $113.00 54.80% 54.80% 9.60% Sonoma County Transit (Min. zone fare) $1.80 - $0.85 - - - $60.00 $45.00 $30.00 33.33% - 29.41% Sonoma County Transit (Min. zone fare) $3.45 - $1.60 - - - $60.00 $45.00 $30.00 65.22% - 62.50% Vallejo Transit $5.00 $5.00 $2.50 - - - $118.00 - - 52.80% - - VTA (Santa Clara County) $4.00 $1.75 $1.00 $12.00 $5.00 $2.50 $140.00 $45.00 $25.00 30.00% 48.57% 50.00% Westcat (W. Contra Costa County) $4.00 - $2.00 - - - $140.00 - $20.00 - - - Yolobus $3.00 $1.50 $1.50 $6.00 $3.00 $3.00 $110.00 $67.50 $42.50 26.67% 10.00% 43.33% Yuba-Sutter Transit $4.00 $2.00 $2.00 - - - $128.00 - - 36.00% - - AVERAGE $4.67 $3.14 $2.03 $9.79 $5.30 $4.35 $128.36 $63.44 $46.86 41.2% 38.2% 39.6% *Assumes 50 trips per monthly pass.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 284 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit E.2.5 Commuter Fare Comparison Chart

Yuba-Sutter Transit $4.00

Yolobus $3.00

Westcat (W. Contra Costa County) $4.00

VTA (Santa Clara County) $4.00

Vallejo Transit $5.00

Sonoma County Transit (Min. zone fare) $3.45

Sonoma County Transit (Min. zone fare) $1.80

Santa Cruz METRO $5.00

San Joaquin Regional Transit District (Max. zone fare) $7.00

San Joaquin Regional Transit District (Min. zone fare) $7.00

SamTrans (San Mateo County) $5.00

Roseville Transit $3.25

Placer Commuter Express (Max. zone fare) $5.75

Placer Commuter Express (Min. zone fare) $4.25

Monterey-Salinas Transit $10.00

Fairfield-Suisun Transit (Max. zone fare) $6.75

Fairfield-Suisun Transit (Min. zone fare) $2.75

El Dorado Transit $5.00

Benicia Transit $1.75

$0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00 Base Full Fare (One-Way Trip)

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 285 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Dial-A-Ride and Paratransit Service Peer Fare Analysis Of the 27 peers analyzed for fixed-route fares, 23 offered Dial-A-Ride or Paratransit services. These service offerings spanned from eligibility-based and general public Dial-A-Ride to ADA Paratransit service exclusively for persons with disabilities. Exhibit F.2.6 illustrates fare types for DAR and Paratransit services for one-ride, multiple-ride, and monthly passes.

Single Ride Exhibit E.2.7 compares the peer’s base cash fare for a one-way trip. Roseville Transit’s base DAR cash fare for eligible patrons (seniors and persons with disabilities) is slightly below the average ($2.67), while Sacramento Regional Transit is the highest ($5.00). However, SacRT has a much larger service area.

10 and 20-Ride Ticket Book When looking at ticket books, many of the operators with demand-response DAR/paratransit services generally offered either a 10-ride or 20-ride book. The fares displayed in Exhibit E.2.6 for the multi-ride passes reflect fares for eligible patrons only, such as seniors and/or persons with disabilities and do not reflect general public fares. Roseville Transit is below the average cost for a 10-ride ticket book, yet more expensive than Placer County Transit’s 20-ride ticket book for DAR for eligible patrons.

Monthly Pass Only three operators offered monthly passes for DAR/Paratransit services, ranging from $48.00 to $125.00. Again, SacRT charges a significantly higher rate for this fare media than any other operator.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 286 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit E.2.6 Dial-A-Ride Fare Comparison Matrix Per Ride Ticket Book Monthly Pass* Eligible General Larger 10-Ride 20-Ride Eligible General DAR/Paratransit Provider Patrons Public Service Area Pass Pass Patrons Public Benicia Transit (Within Benicia) Unknown ------El Dorado Transit $2.00 $4.00 $5.00 - - - - Fairfield-Suisun Transit (DART) $3.00 - - $30.00 - - Folsom Stage $4.00 - - $95.00 - Fresno Area Express (Handy Ride) $1.50 - - $48.00 - Golden Empire Transit District (Get-A-Lift) $2.50 - - $25.00 - - Lincoln Transit $1.50 - - - - Monterey-Salinas Transit (RIDES) $2.00 - $6.00 $10.00 - - Petaluma Transit $2.50 - - $27.00 - - Placer County Transit $1.25 $2.50 - - $21.25 - - Roseville Transit $2.50 $3.75 - $25.00 - - - Sacramento Regional Transit $5.00 - - - - $125.00 - SamTrans (San Mateo County) $3.75 - - $37.50 - - - San Joaquin Regional Transit District $3.00 $3.00¹ - $27.50 - - - Sant Rosa CityBus $2.50 - - $25.00 Santa Cruz METRO (ParaCruz) $3.00 ------Sonoma County Transit $2.50 - $3.50 - - - - Union City Transit $2.50 ------Vacaville City Coach $2.00 - - - $39.00 - - Vallejo Transit (RunAbout) $3.50 $6.00 VTA (Santa Clara County) $4.00 - $16.00 - - - - Westcat (W. Contra Costa County DAR) $1.25 $4.00 $3.00 - - - - Yolobus $3.00 - $4.00 $30.00 - - - AVERAGE $2.67 $3.56 $6.21 $26.33 $30.13 $89.33 - *Assumes 50 trips per month ¹DAR offered to General Public only in rural areas where no public transit service exists.

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 287 CITY OF ROSEVILLE – SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN

Exhibit E.2.7 Dial-A-Ride Fare Comparison Chart

Yolobus $3.00 Westcat (W. Contra Costa County DAR) $1.25

VTA (Santa Clara County) $4.00

Vallejo Transit (RunAbout) $3.50 Vacaville City Coach $2.00

Union City Transit $2.50

Sonoma County Transit $2.50 Santa Cruz METRO (ParaCruz) $3.00

Sant Rosa CityBus $2.50

San Joaquin Regional Transit District $3.00 SamTrans (San Mateo County) $3.75

Sacramento Regional Transit $5.00

Roseville Transit $2.50 Placer County Transit $1.25

Petaluma Transit $2.50

Monterey-Salinas Transit (RIDES) $2.00 Lincoln Transit $1.50

Golden Empire Transit District (Get-A-Lift) $2.50

Fresno Area Express (Handy Ride) $1.50

Folsom Stage $4.00

Fairfield-Suisun Transit (DART) $3.00

El Dorado Transit $2.00

$0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 Base Full Fare (One-Way Trip)

MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 288