2003/2004 UNMET TRANSIT NEEDS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Introduction: Annually, the RTPA takes public testimony on unmet transit needs in Shasta County. Comments received are grouped below according to subject matter. Some comments, such as those for new general-public transit services, require an RTPA response as to whether the service can meet “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet” criteria developed by the RTPA. Other comments, such as those for new senior services, require a CTSA response on whether that service is consistent with “community transit service” criteria. Services that do not meet either of these funding criteria may be funded at the discretion of a city or county, depending on where the transit need occurs, and a jurisdiction response may be provided.

Comments: Grouped by Subject

1. FIXED ROUTE/DEMAND RESPONSE SERVICE AREA

A. Extend Hours of Operation

I. Sunday Service (PH-1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,EM-1)

II. Longer Hours (PH-1,2,3,4,5,6,9,EM-1)

III. Express Service to Shasta College in A.M. (PH-8)

RTPA Response

These services are subject to “unmet transit need” and “reasonable to meet” criteria.

These requests are similar to comments received last year. This indicates that this is an unmet need. In the 2001/2002 Transit Needs Assessment analysis, extending hours on limited routes also failed to meet the farebox ratio.

The RTPA conducted an onboard survey of riders to determine transit areas with the highest demand for evening service. Survey results concluded that the highest concentration of boarding and deboarding was in the areas of Mt. Shasta Mall, Hillop, Enterprise , downtown Redding, and Lake Blvd. Service would need to run 6 days a week and extend until no earlier than 12:00 pm. Riders are only willing to pay up to $3.00 for this service.

Fixed route ridership was also documented by RABA drivers to try to determine the most concentrated passenger times on the buses. Trips were entered in to a database and line charts were prepared for each individual route and a total “system-wide” graph was prepared.

An analysis was completed used an elasticity of demand theory from the RABA LSC report. This theory is that “fare increases will reduce general public ridership for persons who choose to ride a bus .” The RABA LSC report uses a –35% factor for general riders and –25% for senior/disabled riders.

The proposed rate for the extended hour service would be $2.00 per ride for fixed route and $4.00 per ride for demand response. Based on the elasticity theory of reduced ridership for fare increases, the projected riders for extended evening service would be 2-3 riders per hour for fixed route and 1 rider per hour for demand response.

Farebox

The 2001/2002 RABA farebox ratio was 19.8%, which exceeds the temporary required farebox ratio of 16.5%. established in 2001/2002. .

Although extended evening service is a recognized benefit, there is a low probability that these services would not meet farebox requirements.