Recently I was appointed to the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council, an organization required by law for the process of receiving Federal funding. The appointment was made by the Amador County Transportation Commission. Two members, whom I had never met, voted against me presumably based upon my “ideological” reputation. They appeared to put partisanship above qualifications since I was vastly more qualified than the only other candidate.
Over the past several weeks I have digested the about 150 pages of the Amador County Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan, 2014 and the Amador County Short Range Transit Development Plan, For Years 2014 through 2019. Both of these plans are excellent. I don’t say that to be patronizing or conciliatory, but rather because I have seen too many horrid plans. But however excellent these two plans are, with reams of data and thoughtful and workable solutions, they are both conceived (as would be expected) within a narrow frame of reference. My approach is different and delivers a more business oriented perspective to solving Amador’s public transportation needs. It also radically alters the proposed staging of improvements. But I only examine certain aspects of the plans where I have concrete suggestions. Other areas are left untouched.
My proposals contain the concept of seat turnover. Transit is only economically efficient when a seat is turned over several times between the two ends (terminals) of a route. This is like table turnover in a restaurant or merchandise in a store. Can you envision someone from Buckhorn getting off in Pine Grove to visit Pine Cone Drug or Dollar General and their empty seat being taken by someone traveling to the Rancheria (on a new routing)? Then that vacated seat is filled by someone leaving the Rancheria for Jackson? This is three times the revenue for the same expenditure of time and money as in the present service. Another concept is two directional travel. The plans gave little data in this area, but I assume that there are many near empty backhaul (deadhead) type runs in our system. Therefore, I will explore other ridership markets. It seems apparent that neither of these two concepts are included in the plan’s elasticity of demand calculations.
I believe both professionally and personally that the present leadership of Amador Transit is doing a truly outstanding job considering their funding and other constraints. My ideas are outside the realm of what they can do.
All quotations and other references from the texts will be cited by page number with the Human Services plan referred to as HS and the Transit Plan referred to as TP. Both of these plans are available to any interested member of the public.
Work was the reason for 30% of Amador Transit’s ridership (TP47). And despite the successful shuttle service in the Jackson/Sutter Creek county core 70% of all riders (TP47) said they don’t transfer between bus routes. While part of this is due to the no free transfers/separate fare per ride policy, much of it is due to the skeletal nature of the system that precludes certain transfer possibilities. An on board survey commentator wrote (TP Appendix A): “Can’t get early bus to Sacramento and can’t get back to Pine Grove on same day.” Not coincidentally, both these routes are considered for priority improvement.
Amador Transit riders are loyal since 75% said that they have ridden for over a year (TP48). While this clearly speaks to the quality of the existing service, it is also a warning against making any changes that would discourage existing riders. Occasional riders (TP48) include those 4.5% of riders who ride 1-4 days per month and the 3% of riders who ride less than one day per month. This 7.5 % total of occasional riders is not a bad number considering about 10% or slightly more would be considered normal in a large city system. Occasional riders are often those picking up their car from repair or going to meet someone and returning home in the other person’s car. However, in Amador County the occasional riders are probably mostly seniors running non daily errands or going to medical appointments. But this discussion is important because this latent occasional rider market is there, but needs more frequent and convenient service to ride. Of the general public surveyed 93% stated that Amador County should provide public transit (TP58).
Upcountry
The Upcountry area of Buckhorn, Pioneer and Pine Grove is served by Bus Route 2 which provides three daily round trips: am, pm and mid day. Volcano is not served. “...many Upcountry residents find the current bus schedule to be a barrier to using public transit” (HS29). “The current schedule requires Upcountry residents to spend a total of five hours of travel time in order to complete a round trip to Jackson” (TP92). The 25 or so daily riders (TP31) travel a route that covers 24 one way miles (TP84) at a cost of $28.61 per trip (TP30). This compares with a system wide average of $18.49 (TP30) and a low of $10.31 for the Route 3 service to Plymouth (TP30).
This wide discrepancy of subsidy is grossly unfair and subsidizes Upcountry at the expense of others. Due to this situation a fare increase is proposed for the UpCounty service (TP86, TP93). Needless to say, many Upcountry residents oppose this and objection has been voiced several times at Upcountry Council meetings. The plan makes clear that while fare box revenue will rise, ridership will decline (TP86). So this option contains an element of self defeat. Decreased ridership cannot demand increased service. But the two plans clearly document the need for more service now and in the future.
“Increased service to the Upcountry region is one of the most requested Amador Transit improvement suggestions. This is also a top priority for the SSTAC” (TP75). This same need is repeated in the human services plan (HS32). Both plans document an area of low income residents in Buckhorn (HS10, TP58) and concentrations of elderly people in Pine Grove, Pioneer and Buckhorn (HS9, TP58). While elderly is the definition they use, the real demographics reveal middle aged people becoming elderly, in place, and representing a possible increased demand for transit.
Some of this demand is met by the much higher cost DAR (Dial a Ride) service of which there are 36 ADA certified residents in the Pine Grove and Pioneer areas (TP75). Both plans advocate avoiding this higher cost service which doesn’t yet exist Upcountry by expanding the present bus service (HS30, TP44). Very apparent in the Upcountry area is another lack in the existing system, the inability of lower income high school students to attend after school (and after school bus) activities needed to pad college and scholarship applications (HS38, numerous comments in TP Appendix A). Many would consider this a civil rights issue. The present plan calls for adding an additional Upcountry bus run in Fiscal Year 2018-2019 (TP97) and assumes increased subsidy.
I have three interrelated proposals to attack these problems of Upcountry transit. First, we have the competing tax-supported system of school buses. We don’t need nor can afford two separate systems. In larger communities high school students ride only public transit. At present the school district bus system transports 2,000 daily passengers (HS21, TP34). Of these, 495 high school students and 288 grades 5 to 8 students live in the Upcountry area (TP18). This dwarfs the Upcountry Bus Route 2 ridership.
Presently, 24% of youth fare riders are Upcountry riders contrasted with only 9% of youth fare riders system wide. Amador Transit is presently acquiring 32 passenger buses. Given this situation I propose Amador Transit operate the school runs east of Pine Grove for older students. Depending upon their specific school destination, some students may transfer at the Pine Grove School as is currently done in the existing school bus system. Presumably the Highway 88/Pine Grove Improvement Project will fix the traffic congestion problem at the Pine Grove School. It appears that these additional school riders will give the Upcountry service sufficient critical mass to expand service, add additional non school riders and ameliorate the needs cited in the two plans. On the primarily school runs the 3⁄4 mile route deviations for ADA certified riders should be suspended (TP25). This should also address the possible concerns some may have about mixing the students and the disabled.
Also, East of the county core, and related to Upcountry service is the Jackson Rancheria, with no public transit service. It’s a major recreation destination, one of the county’s largest employers with 1,000 to 5,000 employees (TP7, 58, 71, HS12) and hosts the MACT clinic. MACT “...provides medical, dental, outreach, and behavioral health services for Native Americans as well as the general public” (TP37). Their health and dental clinics serve about 100 people per day (TP71, 90). The need to serve this destination repeats through both plans (TP44, HS31). The dental clinic is the only such low income clinic in the county (HS36). One plan provides the necessary discussion of alternatives to best serve the Rancheria (the shuttle from Highway 88 is not discussed here) and notes the problematic one mile distance between the casino and the clinic (TP71).
They rightly conclude that altering the existing Upcountry runs to serve the Rancheria via a five mile round trip to and from Highway 88 would increase travel times sufficiently to discourage existing riders and discard that option (TP74). So their preferred solution is a route between the county core and the Rancheria in Fiscal Year 2015-16 (TP97) which only operates 3 days per week to cut costs (TP90) but includes expensive dead head hours (TP73). This would require Upcountry riders to travel to the country core and then transfer to the separate service, repeating this process to return home. The separate service proposal “solves” the problem of access to the Rancheria. It’s probably the best solution given the present and proposed minimal service/ridership because the school bus riders are not considered. While it serves a need in isolation, it does not build a transit system. Productivity is limited to a one way fully seated load and revenue is limited by their single fares.
If the additional runs replacing the school buses are implemented the Rancheria could be served via the Route 2, Upcountry service. Seat turnover is achieved and unnecessary transferring is eliminated. The route should not be a time consuming off route and return to Highway 88 trip but rather continue via New York Ranch Road and Ridge Road to the county core. This may even take student riders closer to the surviving high school, if that situation occurs, than the current routing. However, which Route 2 runs take which routings need be a judicious selection process with the present commuter runs probably left unchanged.
Another solution presented for Upcountry Service was the Hopper (TP44) with a variant that went to Volcano (HS39). This concept of short lining, not traveling the full route, is useful Upcountry . Not all runs, especially with expanded runs, need go to Amador Station or even Buckhorn. This could be a factor in making that expansion more affordable. Volcano, of course, could be served on selected runs of an expanded Upcountry service. One plan discussion of the Hopper (TP44) implies an Upcountry circular ending in Pine Grove. While no terminal is suggested, the perfect location would be the new Dollar General store. But given all the other options discussed and the overall constraints, this idea is dismissed from the Implementation Plan (TP97).
I propose that passengers can shuttle between their homes and the bus stops in a shared taxi mode with few distance restrictions that starts with an expansion of the new volunteer driver program (TP44, HS31). System wide 13% of existing riders are dropped off (TP45).There may be security concerns here, but I assume that they are solvable. Riders getting off a bus at the scheduled times could simply meet a waiting vehicle. Those in their homes could request a pickup via the Amador Transit dispatcher or via a mobile device using a variant of the Uber technology now disrupting the established taxi industry. Eventually this could even evolve into a private sector service like the post World War 1 jitneys or the longer lasting “peso cabs” in some North American cities. This would solve the problem of those having mobility concerns or just living too far away (HS37). This does not include students that I assume would walk to their bus stop.
The two plans make thoughtful trade off decisions and meet specific needs with isolated solutions, dependent almost solely on increased grants, but they do not build a transit system that can be significantly more self sustaining.
Sacramento Service
Amador Transit operates an am and pm round trip to Sacramento. Like the Upcountry's Route 2 it is scheduled for commuter times and has a loyal ridership. And like the Upcountry service it is a skeletal service that leaves many needs unserved and lacks enough trips to attract more riders. However, it is the only service that takes people outside the county and provides a vital link to Amtrak and, via a transfer to Yolo Bus, the Sacramento Airport. This route also provides service to Rancho Murrieta and is subsidized by SACDOT (Sacramento County Department of Transportation) at about $70,000 per year (TP27).
Travel to medical appointments in Sacramento is a primary unmet need (TP44, 57, 58, HS31, 32, 37). Of the general public surveyed 59% expressed a need for more transit service to Sacramento (TP57). The VA hospital in Mather was a frequently noted destination (HS27, 37, TP Appendix A). The Mather VA facility is accessible from Sacramento’s Bus Route 74 which connects to their light rail system. So this trip is feasible, even if time consuming and arduous for someone with medical problems. But the present configuration of the Amador Transit route involves backtracking, generally conceived of as time wasting. If there were more trips to Sacramento, some could be routed to the Sunrise Light Rail Station. This would cut the distance and time to the Mather VA facility and significantly lower the costs of additional Sacramento runs. More trips to Sacramento would also solve the UpCountry to Sacramento transferring problem and as with all plans that induce system interaction rather than isolated routes, incremental ridership could increase system wide.
Like the proposed relationship between service to the Rancheria and Upcountry , the Ione Route 7 service is geographically linked to the Sacramento service. Route 7 provides three daily round trips between Ione and the county core. It transports about 27 passengers per day at the highest productivity in the system (TP31) given its short distance and the need for service. Ione is one of the county’s pockets of elderly (HS9). But many of the current riders are daylong social service clients (TP76) with the current schedule possibly precluding shorter medical and personal business trips (TP76) as occurs with the present Upcountry service. And Mule Creek Prison, with 500-999 employees (TP7, 58, HS12), is not served by the present routing. Present riders from Ione have to backtrack to the county core to travel to Sacramento (TP Appendix A). However, increased service to Ione is not in the Implementation Plan (TP97) given the other priorities.
With the Sacramento bus service expanded and the commuter runs left untouched, all or most additional service to Ione should be via the Sacramento route. This will lead to seat turnover and serve new transit travel patterns. Also this routing would serve Mule Creek Prison. A possible scheduling would be the early am trips from Sacramento returning via Ione and eliminating some deadheading. However, this proposal is dependent upon Michigan Bar Road being considered a safe transit route. I propose that, like with the Rancheria & UpCountry service, the Ione and Sacramento services be considered as an organic whole. Since the Implementation Plan for Fiscal Year 2014-15 includes the Intercity Feasibility Study (TP97) required for funding of the additional Sacramento service, this linkage and its advantages should be included in that study.
All the plan discussions mention, almost exclusively, Amador County to Sacramento travel. Noexposition of Sacramento to Amador County travel occurs. Yet our county “....is heavily dependent on tourism...” (TP39). According to the 2010 Census, Sacramento County has 229,000 residents over 60 years of age. If only 5% of them took a bus to Amador County once a year that equals 46 round trip riders a day. If each of these visitors spent, in addition to their bus fare, $20 a day (a meal and some trinkets) that would add $230,000 to the local economy. Certainly this should be a consideration. Coupons from local merchants would add a psychological allure for some. Others may just enjoy getting out and having a ride through the countryside. Some attractions such as the County Museum involve uphill walks and some are distant such as the Kennedy Mine. However, walking tours of Jackson and Sutter Creek, even if self guided, would probably be appealing to many. Certainly ridership of this type would be looked on favorably by SACDOT in their subsidy decisions beyond their obligatory funding of Ranch Murrieta/Sacramento service.
I propose that the Amador Council of Tourism, the Chamber of Commerce, the various merchant associations, Amador Transit and all other respective parties form a working group, along with senior citizen groups from Sacramento, to investigate the possibilities of Sacramento to Amador County transit tourism. Can this working group get their findings into the next round of plans? How much would the financial equation change if every return trip from Sacramento except the last trip carried a fully seated load? While the Chamber is a private organization that receives County tourist funding, and other organizations are nongovernmental, Amador Transit and the Amador Council of Tourism are both government entities. In fact, the Council of Tourism is already located at the Sutter Hill Transit Center (TP33). Like the school bus system/Amador Transit situation, we the taxpayers and citizens also own both the tourism council and the transit service.
Conclusion
Will any of the proposals I’ve made work? I haven’t run any numbers. It’s quite possible that given increased ridership, even vastly increased ridership, will still require even higher levels of subsidy and make my suggestions unfeasible. But I will have succeeded if the perspective of the participants in this process is enlarged. The present plans are adopted, but hopefully my proposals are thought provoking enough to influence the next round of plans.
Some of our expenditures are not under our local control. The Amador County Local Transportation Fund spent $125,000 on Ped/Bike planning between 2004 and 2014. Presumably this was to meet State requirements. But it could have been better spent on transit and roads.
Beyond funding, the “institutional framework” is another stumbling block. Many of the parts of government I’ve noted are very separate entities with their differing styles and organizational cultures. Certainly the fact that the school bus drivers are unionized and the transit bus drivers are not is a significant issue. But are we to be ruled by the institutions we have put in motion to provide us services or are we a self governing people? Is it not wise and efficient to best use the resources we now have, or should we just complain about what we don’t have such as transit subsidies to expand the system beyond its skeletal structure? Can we reach a critical mass of ridership for a more complete transit system on our own and avoid some high cost DAR and other social service transportation expenses? Has anyone forgotten that for reasons still not clear the school buses of New Orleans sat in storage during the Katrina evacuation?
Over a hundred years ago Londoners faced a confusing, uncoordinated muddle of rail lines for their daily travel. The British upper classes that owned the competing railroads were dismissive of public demands for a unified system. So citizens groups got together and hired a man described as a foul mouthed, cigar chomping, pot bellied Irish American railroader from Chicago. He did what we Yanks would call "butt heads together" and created what is now known as the London Underground. Closer to home, some years ago citizens groups got the planners to discard their proposed express bus system in favor of the now existing Sacramento light rail.
