I spoke at the Amador Transit Board of Directors/Amador County Transportation Commission meeting on 8/2/18 and made the following remarks:
“I am here speaking as a private citizen and not as a member of SSTAC (Social Services Transportation Advisory Council). However, through that involvement I have become aware that transit service to the Comanche area, which once was more frequent, is presently our most significant unmet need. But service to meet this need should also be designed for maximum ridership potential. The best routing solution, although complexified by the institutional framework, seems to be Valley Springs/Ione. It would split within the Comanche area similar to the present loop. It could develop two directional travel, a perquisite for efficient transit as well as probably reducing the costs of the present Ione route. If, at some later date, a non rush hour service to Sacramento via Ione begins then we will have greater interconnectedness, another perquisite for efficient transit. And more service to Sacramento is the second unmet need in importance after the Comanche area.
While these suggestions all received positive responses among SSTAC members, they stayed dormant. But circumstances have changed prompting me to appear here today. Is Amador Transit a participant in the present mitigation discussions and agreements regarding the Buena Vista Casino? Aside from the obvious possibility of direct subsidy, I have other concerns. Will the casino operate buses from Valley cities as some casinos around Sacramento presently do? Do we have transfer possibilities that could add convenience and ridership/revenue? Will any potential transit service be able to stop at the main entrance without canopy or pavement problems?
Therefore, I ask that this commission, by whatever is the appropriate procedure, officially request that Amador Transit be included in these discussions and agreements. Thank you.”
In addition to the above it should be noted that an Ione/Valley Springs route could produce seat turnover, like table turnover in a restaurant, and therefore produce more revenue. Probably the largest ridership market for this possible service will be casino workers. Can an unskilled young person take advantage of these new employment opportunities without owning a car? Also the casino impacts will likely require redesigning existing service in the Comanche area whatever Amador Transit’s participation in the mitigation process is or isn’t.
Since I spoke during the citizen comment period, on a nonagenda item, there was no discussion among the commissioners. But after the formal meeting conversations ensued. One commissioner stated that the county and casino had already made their deal and that to reopen negotiations was a can of worms. That’s a point well taken because it sets a bad precedent. Another said that the casino canopy design will be reexamined. Overall, my presentation was thoughtfully received, but will anything be changed?
Shouldn’t have Amador Transit have been included in the original process? Is asking for 50K to 100K annually in mitigation fees for this new bus route considered outrageous? What do other Amadorians think? What is the final verdict of public opinion?
Mark Bennett, Pine Grove
