Document alpinecountyca_gov_doc_4868013782

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Prepared for the Prepared by Alpine County Short Range Transit Plan Alpine County Local Transportation Commission Draft Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ALPINE COUNTY SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN, 2015 Draft Plan Prepared for Alpine County Local Transportation Commission 50 Diamond Valley Road Markleeville, California 96120 530 • 694-2140 Prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2690 Lake Forest Road, Suite C P.O. Box 5875 Tahoe City, California 96145 530 • 583-4053 January 29, 2016 LSC #157180 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 BACKGROUND CONDITIONS 3 Study Area Characteristics 3 Demographics 3 Economy and Employment 12 Major Transit Activity Centers for Alpine County Residents 14 3 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICES AND NEEDS 17 History 17 Current Transit Services 17 Regional Connections 19 Vehicles and Facilities 21 Alpine County Transit Operating and Financial Statistics 21 Other Transportation Providers in Alpine County 36 Public Transit Needs in Alpine County 38 4 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICES AND NEEDS 43 Service Alternatives 43 5 RECOMMENDED TRANSIT PLAN 61 Capital Plan 61 Financial Plan 63 Service Plan 63 APPENDIX A: Origin – Destination Tables APPENDIX B: Public Input LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1 Historical and Projected Population 5 2 Transit Dependent Population by Census Place 6 3 English Language Proficiency in Alpine County by Census Place 11 4 Occupancy Status of Housing Units in Alpine County 11 5 Population Projections by Age for Alpine County 12 6 Major Employers in Alpine County 13 7 Alpine County Inter-County Commute Pattern Data 14 8 Alpine DAR Historic Passenger and Service Levels 22 9 Alpine DAR Passenger Trends 23 10 Alpine County Transit DAR Passenger Trends by Type 24 11 Alpine County Transit DAR Passengers by Day of Week 25 12 Alpine County Transit DAR Revenues 26 ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page ii 13 Alpine County Transit DAR Fiscal Year 2014-15 Expenses & Cost Allocation 27 14 Alpine County Transit Historical DAR Performance Trends 28 15 Alpine County Transit DAR Performance Analysis 33 16 Alpine County DAR Average Origin – Destination Pattern 34 17 Alpine County DAR Origin – Destination Patterns 35 18 Alpine County Transit DAR Fiscal Year 2015-16 Expenses & Cost Allocation 44 19 Alpine County Transit Service Alternatives 45 20 Service Alternative Performance Analysis 57 21 Alpine County Transit Capital Plan 61 22 Alpine County TDP – Financial Plan 64 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1 Geographic Location Map 4 2 Senior Population 7 3 Youth Population by Census Place 8 4 Persons with Disabilities by Census Place 9 5 Zero Vehicle Households by Census Place 10 6 Alpine County Transit Dial-A-Ride Service Area 18 7 Alpine DAR Historic Passenger Trends 22 8 Alpine DAR Five Year Passenger Trends 23 9 Alpine County Transit DAR Passenger Trends by Day of Week 25 10 Alpine County Transit DAR Passengers per Vehicle Service Hour 29 11 Alpine County Transit DAR Passengers per Vehicle Service Mile 29 12 Alpine County Transit DAR Operating Cost per Passenger 30 13 Alpine County Transit DAR Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Hour 30 14 Alpine County Transit DAR Operating Subsidy per Passenger 31 15 Alpine County Transit DAR Operating Farebox Ratio 32 16 Service Alternatives One-way Passenger Trips per Hour 58 17 Service Alternatives Marginal Operating Subsidy per Trip 59 ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 1 Chapter 1 Introduction Transportation considerations play a key role in the quality of life provided by any community. Access to social services, medical services, employment opportunities, educational resources and basic necessities are topics of universal concern, as they have a strong impact on the economy, ease of movement, and quality of life for residents. In addition to providing mobility to residents without access to a private automobile, transit services can provide a wide range of economic development and environmental benefits. The Alpine County Transportation Commission, aware of the importance of transportation issues, has retained LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., to prepare a five-year Transit Development Plan for Alpine County. This study provides an opportunity to develop plans that will tailor transit services to current conditions in the study area. This document presents and reviews the setting for transportation, including demographic factors and the recent operating history of Alpine County Transit. Included is a detailed overview of the existing transit system operating characteristics and performance as well as summary of transit riders and non-transit riders’ needs. ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 2 This page left intentionally blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 3 Chapter 2 Background Conditions STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS As shown in Figure 1, Alpine County is located in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in eastern California, just south of the Lake Tahoe area. The major arterial roadways transecting Alpine County are State Route 4, State Route 88, and State Route 89. State Route 4 provides a link to Calaveras County to the southwest over Ebbett’s Pass. State Route 88 provides links to the Central Valley to the west, and Minden and Gardnerville to the east in Nevada’s Carson Valley. State Route 89 provides links to South Lake Tahoe (El Dorado County) to the north and Mono County to the southeast over Monitor Pass. Ebbetts Pass and Monitor Pass are closed during the winter months due to snow accumulation. There are no incorporated cities in Alpine County. Markleeville, Woodfords, Kirkwood and Bear Valley are the primary unincorporated communities in the study area. Alpine County comprises 465,030 acres (738.6 square miles), which makes it California’s eighth smallest of 58 counties. The area is truly a recreation paradise, from the tall mountain peaks laced with lakes and streams to the valley floors. Almost 95 percent of the land is publicly owned and is open to the public for such uses as skiing, fishing, hiking, hunting, and other daytime recreational uses. The study area includes portions of the Mokelumne and Carson- Iceberg Wilderness areas, and portions of the Humboldt-Toiyabe, Stanislaus, and El Dorado National Forests. Alpine County also boasts other developed amenities, such Grover Hot Springs State Park, Bear Valley Mountain Resort, and Kirkwood Mountain Resort. Elevation ranges from 4,800 feet to over 11,400 feet. The Central Sierra Nevada is the dominant land feature, with the Carson and Antelope Valleys bordering on the east. Alpine County’s climate is characterized by warm, dry summers and cold winters with frequent severe snowstorms. Annual mean snowfall is approximately 90 inches and annual mean rainfall is approximately 21 inches. Typical January temperatures range from about 23 to 44 degrees Fahrenheit, while typical July temperatures range from 53 to 85 degrees Fahrenheit. As a rural county, basic goods and services are extremely limited in Alpine County. There are no major grocery stores, banks or movie theaters. For commercial, employment and medical centers Alpine County residents must travel 20 miles northeast to Minden/ Gardnerville in Nevada or 30 miles northwest to South Lake Tahoe. Bear Valley residents must travel a similar distance west to the Calaveras County community of Arnold for services. DEMOGRAPHICS Alpine County saw its greatest population during the silver mining days of the 1860s. Indeed, in 1864 Alpine County boasted a population of 11,000. However, miners quickly found silver was difficult to extract at a profit and by 1868, the population fell to fewer than 1,200 people. Population dwindled to a low of 200 in the 1920s, but increased in the 1960s and 1970s (in part due to the development of the Bear Valley and Kirkwood ski resorts) to its present day level of approximately 1,100. According to the U.S. Census, the population of Alpine County was 1,208 persons in 2000. The California Department of Finance estimates the 2015 population at 1,121 persons, or 87 fewer people than 15 years ago. This equates to an annual percentage decrease in the population of 0.5 percent per year. The California Department of Finance (DOF) Demographic Research Unit ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 4 Woodfords Woodfords Tribal Community (Hung-A-Lel-Ti) £ ¤ 395 £ ¤ 50 £ ¤ 50 £ ¤ 50 U V 108 U V 88 U V 4 U V 208 U V 207 U V 89 U V 89 U V 4 U V 108 U V 88 U V 89 U V 89 U V 108 U V 108 U V 89 4 395 88 8 9 1 0 8 S on o r a Pass C Main 88 5 0 50 50 88 395 50 4 88 Avery Minden Arnold Kirkwood Kingsbury Mesa Vista Dorrington Bear Valley Smith Valley Johnson Lane Indian Hills Gardnerville Markleeville Alpine Village South Lake Tahoe Gardnerville Ranchos Zephyr Cove-Round Hill Village A l p i n e M o n o D o u g l a s T u o l u m n e E l D o r a d o C a l a v e r a s L y o n A m a d o r P l a c e r C a r s o n C i t y Sources: Esri, DeLorme, HERE, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, and the GIS User Community CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA Figure 1 Alpine County Site and Location Map Alpine County ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 5 provides population projections for California and its counties (Table DOF forecasts around 1 percent average annual increase in the population to 1,296 persons in 2020 and 1,329 persons in 2025. These projections are in contrast to the historical trend for the past 15 years has been a decline in population by 0.5 percent annually. If the historical population decline rate is applied to the 2015 population, the estimated 2020 population would be 1,093 persons, while the 2025 population estimate would be 1,067 persons. Potentially Transit Dependent Population Nationwide, transit system ridership is drawn largely from various groups of persons who make up what is often called the “potentially transit dependent” population. This category includes elderly persons, persons with disabilities, low-income persons, and members of households with no available vehicles. There is considerable overlap among these groups. For example, a disabled person may be over age 65 and a low income person may live in a zero vehicle household. The following table and figures provide an overview of concentrations of transit dependent population. Table 2 presents demographic data by census place and tribal census tract for the transit dependent population in Alpine County using American Community Survey 2009 – 2013 five year estimates. Figures 2 - 5 present this data graphically. A review of this data indicates the following:  According to the Census, there were 276 persons living in Alpine County age 65 and over. This represents nearly 20 percent of the countywide population and is nearly double the statewide figure of 11.4 percent. Markleeville has the largest proportion of elderly residents (64 percent or 77 persons).  Youths (persons under the age of 18) are also common transit riders. In Alpine County, there were 195 youth. The larger communities such as Markleeville and Hung-A-Lel-Ti have the largest populations of youth (58 and 64 persons, respectively).  Persons with disabilities is another typical transit dependent demographic. This category includes someone who may require a mobility device such as a wheelchair as well as someone with cognitive disabilities. According to the Census, 160 persons with disabilities reside in Alpine County. Over one third of Hung-A-Lel-Ti’s 226 residents are considered disabled.  Low-income persons are another likely market for transit services as measured by the number of persons living below the poverty level. Poverty level is determined by a scale TABLE 1: Alpine County Historical and Projected Population 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2015 2020 2030 Alpine County Population 484 1,097 1,113 1,196 1,233 1,252 1,296 1,328 Annual Percent Growth 8.2% 0.1% 0.7% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% Over Previous Period 126.7% 1.5% 7.5% 3.1% 1.5% 3.5% 2.5% California Population 19,953,134 23,667,902 29,760,021 33,871,648 37,341,978 38,896,969 40,619,346 44,085,600 Annual Percent Growth 1.7% 2.3% 1.3% 1.0% 0.8% 0.4% 0.8% Over Previous Period 18.6% 25.7% 13.8% 10.2% 4.2% 4.4% 8.5% Source: California Demographic Research Unit ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 6 developed by the US Census based on the total household income and number of family members. For example, a household of four people include two children under the age of 18 with a household income under $23,624 is considered low income. An estimated 184 low-income persons reside in the study area, representing 15.8 percent of total County population. Poverty level assessment for individual communities was unavailable.  The Census estimated that 15 households or 1.3 percent of all households in Alpine County do not have access to an operable vehicle. Just under half are located within Woodfords Tribal Community of Hung-A-Lel-Ti. Washoe Tribe The Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California includes a tribal community in Alpine County called Hung-a-Lel-Ti, located off Diamond Valley Road in the northeastern portion of the county. According to the Census Bureau’s 2013 population estimates there are 226 Native Americans living in Alpine County or 19.4 percent of the total countywide population. There are very limited facilities available to the community. On site at Hung-A-Lel-Ti there is a Community Center, Gym, and Community Indian Education Center which offers tutoring for youth and a Tribal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) office. Language Proficiency It is important for planners to ensure that all ethnic groups are fairly represented in planning efforts. As such this document reviews English language proficiency in Alpine County. Table 3 illustrates various levels of the ability to speak English in Alpine County by Census designated place. In the total study area, only 11.1 percent of residents speak a language other than English at home, and 3.2 percent speak English less than very well. As shown, Kirkwood and the Woodfords Tribal Community are the two regions with greater portions of the population that are not completely proficient at English. Out of the 66 permanent Kirkwood residents, 13 (or 19.7 percent) speak English less than very well, and 18 (or 27.3 percent) speak a language TABLE 2: Alpine County Transit Dependent Population by Census Place Alpine Village Bear Valley Kirkwood Markleeville Mesa Vista Woodfords Tribal Community Hung-A-Lel-Ti Countywide Youth (Under 18 years) 36 9 0 58 28 64 195 % of Total 30.0% 13.8% 0.0% 20.5% 12.5% 28.3% 16.7% Senior (65+ years) 9 0 14 77 69 21 190 % of Total 7.5% 0.0% 21.2% 27.2% 30.8% 9.3% 16.3% Senior (75+ years) 0 0 8 50 23 5 86 % of Total 0.0% 0.0% 12.1% 17.7% 10.3% 2.2% 7.4% Low-Income NA NA NA NA NA NA NA % of Total Disabled 7 15 4 35 16 83 160 % of Total 5.8% 23.1% 6.1% 12.4% 7.1% 36.7% 13.7% Zero Vehicle Households 0 0 3 0 5 7 15 % of Total 0.0% 0.0% 4.5% 0.0% 2.2% 3.1% 1.3% Transit Dependent Population 52 24 29 220 141 180 646 Total Population 120 65 66 283 224 226 1,165 Total Households for Survey Period 24 13 14 99 114 48 312 Source: 2009 - 2013 American Community Survey 5 Year Estimates Note: Individual communities do not add up to countywide total as some residents live outside the designated communities. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 7 Woodfords Tribal Community (Hun-A-Lel-Ti) Walker Kingsbury South Lake Tahoe Minden Kirkwood Markleeville Bear Valley Mesa Vista Gardnerville n Alpine Village Zephyr Cove Stateline Strawberry £ ¤ 395 £ ¤ 395 £ ¤ 395 £ ¤ 50 £ ¤ 50 £ ¤ 395 U V 108 U V 206 U V 4 U V 88 U V 56 U V 89 U V 89 U V 4 U V 4 U V 89 U V 88 U V 108 U V 89 A l p i n e M o n o D o u g l a s T u o l u m n e E l D o r a d o L y o n A m a d o r C a l a v e r a s Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Percent of Census Place Population Over 65 0% - 7.5% 7.6% - 22% 22.1% - 25% 25.1% - 27.2% 27.3% - 30.8% I 0 8 16 4 Miles Figure 2 Senior Population (65 and Older) ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 8 Woodfords Tribal Community (Hung-A-Lel-Ti) Walker Kingsbury South Lake Tahoe Minden Kirkwood Markleeville Bear Valley Mesa Vista Gardnerville n Alpine Village Zephyr Cove Stateline Strawberry £ ¤ 395 £ ¤ 395 £ ¤ 395 £ ¤ 50 £ ¤ 50 £ ¤ 395 U V 108 U V 206 U V 4 U V 88 U V 56 U V 89 U V 89 U V 4 U V 4 U V 89 U V 88 U V 108 U V 89 A l p i n e M o n o D o u g l a s T u o l u m n e E l D o r a d o L y o n A m a d o r C a l a v e r a s Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Percent of Census Place Population Under 18 Years Old 0% - 12.5% 12.6% - 14% 14.1% - 15% 15.1% - 20.5% 20.6% - 30% I 0 8 16 4 Miles Figure 3 Youth Population by Census Place ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 9 Woodfords Tribal Community (Hun-A-Lel-Ti) Walker Kingsbury South Lake Tahoe Minden Kirkwood Markleeville Bear Valley Mesa Vista Gardnerville n Alpine Village Zephyr Cove Stateline Strawberry £ ¤ 395 £ ¤ 395 £ ¤ 395 £ ¤ 50 £ ¤ 50 £ ¤ 395 U V 108 U V 206 U V 4 U V 88 U V 56 U V 89 U V 89 U V 4 U V 4 U V 89 U V 88 U V 108 U V 89 A l p i n e M o n o D o u g l a s T u o l u m n e E l D o r a d o L y o n A m a d o r C a l a v e r a s Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Percent of Census Place Population with Disabilities 5.8% - 7.1% 7.2% - 12.4% 12.5% - 23.1% I 0 8 16 4 Miles Figure 4 Persons with Disabilities by Census Place ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 10 Woodfords Tribal Community (Hun-A-Lel-Ti) Walker Kingsbury South Lake Tahoe Minden Kirkwood Markleeville Bear Valley Mesa Vista Gardnerville n Alpine Village Zephyr Cove Stateline Strawberry £ ¤ 395 £ ¤ 395 £ ¤ 395 £ ¤ 50 £ ¤ 50 £ ¤ 395 U V 108 U V 206 U V 4 U V 88 U V 56 U V 89 U V 89 U V 4 U V 4 U V 89 U V 88 U V 108 U V 89 A l p i n e M o n o D o u g l a s T u o l u m n e E l D o r a d o L y o n A m a d o r C a l a v e r a s Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Percent of Census Place Households With No Vehicle Available 0% 0.1% - 2.2% 2.3% - 4.5% I 0 8 16 4 Miles Figure 5 Zero Vehicle Households by Census Place ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 11 other than English at home. Some of the reason for this may be that Kirkwood Ski Resort attracts seasonal international employees. In the Woodfords Tribal Community, 65 (30.1 percent) individuals speak a language other than English at home, and 15 (6.9 percent) residents speak English less than very well. For comparison, 19.4 percent of California residents speak English less than very well. Visitor Population As Alpine County includes two ski resorts and abundant recreation activities, many of the housing units in the County are used primarily as vacation homes. According to the U.S. Census, 70 percent of housing units in Alpine County are occupied for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use only (Table Total Individuals # Individuals Who Speak English at Home # Individuals Who Speak Other Language at Home Speak English "Less than Very Well" Alpine Village 106 93 13 0 Bear Valley 58 58 0 0 Kirkwood 66 48 18 13 Markleeville 283 281 2 2 Mesa Vista 212 206 6 0 Woodfords Tribal Community 216 151 65 15 Total Census Place 941 837 104 30 % of Total Census Place 88.9% 11.1% 3.2% Source: US Census American Community Survey 2009-2013 Estimates TABLE 3: English Language Proficiency in Alpine County by Census Place % of Total Total Housing Units 1,835 Housing Units Total Vacant 1,441 78.5% For Rent 43 2.3% Rented, not occupied 0 0.0% For sale only 15 0.8% Sold, not occupied 10 0.5% For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 1,287 70.1% For migrant workers 10 0.5% Other vacant housing units 76 4.1% Source: ACS 2012 5-Year Estimates TABLE 4: Occupancy Status of Housing Units in Alpine County ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 12 Projections of Population by Age Table 5 illustrates population projections by age group in Alpine County between the years of 2010 and 2030, as estimated by the California Department of Demographic Research. This data grants insight into the future population trends of transit-dependent youth and elderly groups. Per Table 5, the elderly populations are expected to drastically increase by the years 2020 and 2030 in Alpine County. From 2010 to 2030, the population of mature retirees (ages 75 through 84) is expected to rise by 295 percent, from 58 to 229 individuals. The population of seniors (ages 85 or more) is projected to grow by 1,471 percent, from a mere 7 to 110 individuals. It is important to note that these growth rates are drastic due to the small population. The data does still provide legitimate cause for an increased consideration of senior transit needs and options in the coming decades. On the other hand, Table 5 indicates that the school age (ages 5-17) population is expected to decrease by 34 percent (from 194 to 129) between the years of 2010 and 2030 within Alpine County. ECONOMY AND EMPLOYMENT In 2013, the median household income in Alpine County was $58,636, which is higher than the statewide average median income of $49,894. The Bureau of Economic Analysis calculated 2013 per capita personal income of Alpine County at $57,981. Major employers in Alpine County are listed in Table 6. As shown, Kirkwood Mountain Resort and Alpine County government departments are the largest employers in the study area. Overall, employment opportunities in Alpine County are limited. The California Employment Development Department estimates that in 2014 there were 490 employed Alpine County residents and an unemployment rate of 8.8 percent. (These figures are not adjusted TABLE 5: Population Projections by Age for Alpine County 2010 2020 2030 % Change 2010-2020 % Change 2010-2030 Preschool Age (0-4 years) 76 49 61 -36% -20% School Age (5-17 years) 194 163 129 -16% -34% College Age (18-24 years) 76 108 92 42% 21% Working Age (25-64 years) 706 556 494 -21% -30% Young Retirees (65-74 years) 116 244 213 110% 84% Mature Retirees (75-84 years) 58 116 229 100% 295% Seniors (85 or more years) 7 60 110 757% 1471% Source: California Demographic Research Unit ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 13 seasonally). For comparison purposes, this is higher than the statewide unemployment rate of 7.5 percent in 2014. Commute Patterns A review of commuter travel patterns is relevant to transit studies, particularly in Alpine County where jobs and basic services are limited. Table 7 presents county-to-county workflow data collected by the US Census Bureau representing 2012, the most recent year available. As shown in the upper part of the table, only about 10 percent of Alpine County residents also work in Alpine County. The remainder of Alpine residents work outside of the County including a large proportion which is categorized as “other”. Common out of county commute destinations are Sacramento County (8.7 percent), Douglas County in Nevada (6.8 percent) and San Joaquin County (likely telecommute) (6.8 percent). Many of these are likely workers whose primary address of their employer is outside the county (such as Caltrans), telecommute, or work seasonally far outside the county. A substantial number of workers (about 75 percent) travel from other counties to work in Alpine County as shown in the lower portion of Table 7. Just over 23 percent or 75 jobs in Alpine County are filled by Douglas County residents. Another 44 jobs (most likely in the Bear Valley area) are filled by Calaveras County residents. TABLE 6: Major Employers in Alpine County Employer Type of Business Location Total No. Employees Kirkwood Mountain and Summer Resort Recreation Kirkwood 500 - 999 Alpine County Government Government Markeeville 50 - 99 Alpine County School School Markeeville 20 - 49 Diamond Valley Elementary School School Markeeville 20 - 49 Intero Real Estate Real Estate Markleeville 20 - 49 Kirkwood Meadows Utility Utility Kirkwood 20 - 49 Morton Golf Lyc Golf Courses Kirkwood 20 - 49 Sorensen's Resort Accommodations Hope Valley 20 - 49 Alpine Learning Center School Markeeville 10 - 19 Caltrans State Transportation Markeeville 10 - 19 Grover Hot Springs State Park Park Markeeville 10 - 19 Tahoe Youth & Family Svc Home Health Service Markleeville 10 - 19 U.S. Forestry Department Government Markeeville 10 - 19 Whatford Construction General Contractors Kirkwood 10 - 19 Woodfords Community Social Service Organization Markleeville 10 - 19 Woodfords Maintenance Station State Transportation Markeeville 10 - 19 Source: California Employment Development Department, America's Labor Market Information System. ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 14 Census data for 2013 also reveals that 52.2 percent of working residents in Alpine County age 16 and older drove alone to work, 16 percent carpooled and no other modes of transportation were reported including public transit. MAJOR TRANSIT ACTIVITY CENTERS FOR ALPINE COUNTY RESIDENTS An important step in the development of a transit plan is to determine where people may need to take the bus. Transit destinations typically in include medical services, human service programs, schools, government offices, commercial centers, and recreation centers. The following reviews major transit activity centers for Alpine County. Medical/ Human Service Activity Centers The Alpine County Department of Health and Human Services is located at 75A Diamond Valley Road in Markleeville, California. The department offers a variety of assistance programs for Alpine County residents in need. Examples of social service type programs include Welfare, Calworks, Foster Home Support, Child Protective Services and Adult Services. The Department also provide numerous public health services such as California Children’s Service, infectious TABLE 7: Alpine County Inter-County Commute Pattern Data County of Employment for Alpine County Residents # Persons % of Total Alpine 77 9.8% Sacramento 68 8.7% Douglas, NV 53 6.8% San Joaquin 53 6.8% Washoe, NV 45 5.8% Amador 30 3.8% El Dorado 29 3.7% Placer 25 3.2% Calaveras 17 2.2% Carson, NV 17 2.2% Other 385 49.2% Total Number of Persons 782 100.0% County of Residence for Alpine County Workers # Persons % of Total Alpine 77 24.4% Douglas, NV 75 23.7% Calaveras 44 13.9% El Dorado 27 8.5% Sacramento 12 3.8% Washoe, NV 9 2.8% Placer 8 2.5% Carson, NV 5 1.6% San Joaquin 5 1.6% Other 59 18.7% Total Number of Persons 316 100.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, County-to-County Work Flow Files. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 15 disease monitoring, STD testing and education, prenatal outreach as well as behavioral health services such as outpatient mental health counseling and substance abuse programs. For specialized medical appointments, consumers of these services are often transported to medical centers outside of Alpine County using a vehicle owned by Alpine County or Dial-A- Ride. Alpine County Health and Humans Services operates one health clinic in Markleeville on Mondays and Wednesdays 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM. Only limited services are available, such as general medical care, pre-employment exams, DMV physicals, health screening, nutrition counseling, vaccinations, lab work, EKG, tobacco cessation, and diabetes prevention and care. Alpine County does not maintain a clinic or medical facilities in the western portion of the county in Bear Valley, however, HHS staff are available in the Bear Valley library to provide non- medical services. Additionally, Eastern Alpine County residents needing Medi-Cal services must travel to South Lake Tahoe in California instead of the more easily accessed medical centers in Nevada. The Washoe Tribal Health Clinic in Gardnerville, Nevada provides medical services for members of the Washoe Tribe. The Toiyabe Indian Health Project clinic in Coleville is open to both native and non-native people. Alpine County Transit Dial-A-Ride serves this clinic on the special needs day, Thursday. Education Centers The Early Learning Center (ELC) receives funding from the First Five program partners with the Alpine County Office of Education for educational and health related services for preschoolers. ELC is located on Foothill Boulevard in Woodfords. In the past, children attending the First Five program were transported via public transit through funding with First Five. First Five also partners with the non-profit Bear Valley Parents Association on the western slope to ensure the sustainability of a 0 – 5 drop in playgroup. The only elementary school is located in Woodfords. Alpine County middle schoolers (grade 6th – 8th) must travel to the Pau-wa-lu Junior High in Nevada for classes. Generally, All high school students living in the eastern portion of the County are transported to Douglas High School in Nevada, and those living in the western portion are transported to Bret Harte High School in Calaveras County, California. However, there is a secondary community day school grades 7 - 12 in Woodfords that specializes in education for students who are unable to adjust to a large high school environment. The Indian Education Center at Hung-a-Lel-Ti offers a library, computer lab and tutoring services to youth. The Center is open Monday through Thursday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM and from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Fridays. Youth tutoring and computer lab service are offered from 1:00 PM to 6:00 PM. Commercial Activity Centers As stated earlier, medical and commercial services are extremely limited in Alpine County. There are a few general stores located in Markleeville, Kirkwood and Bear Valley, but no major grocery store or other types of commercial centers. Financial services such as banks are also unavailable. Alpine County residents must travel to Minden/Gardnerville or South Lake Tahoe for these services (other than Bear Valley residents who typically travel to Calaveras County ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 16 communities). Common commercial destinations in Minden/Gardnerville are: Walmart, Raley’s, and Smiths. Recreational Activity Centers Alpine County has an abundance of recreational opportunities. Skiing, bicycling, boating, hunting, fishing, and snowmobiling are all very accessible. In addition to outdoor recreation, the Diamond Valley Elementary school gymnasium is available for use by community members when it is not being used for school-related activities. There is an application process and insurance coverage is required. A charge may apply to for-profit organizations. The Hung-A-Lel-Ti Gym is open from 5:00 PM to 8:30 PM for all community members to utilize. The Carson Valley Inn Casino in Minden, Nevada is also a popular amusement destination for Alpine County residents. The Bear Valley Parents Group operates an 8 week summer youth camp Monday through Friday in Bear Valley for children age 3 – 16. The younger children attend camp from 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM and the older children stay till 3:00 PM. Special Events Markleeville is home to the grueling Markleeville “Death Ride – Tour of the California Alps” annual bike race, held the second weekend of July. This race is famous for its challenging 153- mile course, which requires riders to climb five 3,000-foot mountain passes in a single day. A series of fairs and other festivals are held by various private groups at such sites as Bear Valley Mountain Resort, Kirkwood Mountain Resort, and Sorensen’s Resort along the Carson River in Hope Valley. Future Development Projects There are a few development projects proposed in Alpine County, mainly in the resort areas; however there no definitive plans for housing unit or commercial growth that would affect public transit over the short term. Over the long term there are plans to expand the Bear Valley Village in the western portion of the county. The project could include hotel rooms, employee housing, residential units, and restaurant/retail space. Per the Kirkwood Recirculated Revised Final Environmental Impact Report (Cirrus Ecological Solutions, LLC, 2002), there is the potential for new condominiums and townhouses near the ski resort that would increase the population of the area. The Markleeville Village/Mahalee Lodge potential project is a mixed-use development that includes three distinct areas of use: a lodge, fractional ownership cabins, and a commercial area. Turtle Rock Park The Turtle Rock Park Community Center, located off of SR 89 between Woodfords and Markleeville, is available for rent for private parties and events. The facility also includes tennis courts, a horseshoe pit, a disc golf course and picnic areas that are available for public use at no charge. The Alpine Trails Association (a local non-profit) is working with the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service and Alpine County on a new trail network which includes a key trailhead at this location which could potentially increase visitation to the area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 17 Chapter 3 Existing Transit Services and Needs Transportation services are very limited in Alpine County. The following discussion presents information on general public transit services, as well as transportation provided through County and Tribal social service programs. Figure 6 illustrates the Alpine County DAR service area. HISTORY Alpine County has always struggled with how to meet mobility needs of an extremely small population. Prior to 1993 the only form of public transit available was transportation to the Senior Center. In 1993 during the unmet transit needs process, the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council concluded that a local, limited transportation service was needed. In March of 1994, Alpine County purchased an ADA equipped minibus and the Alpine County Transportation System (ACTS) was initiated. ACTS began providing free, regular transportation in such areas as Grover Hot Springs, Markleeville, Woodfords, Gardnerville and Paynesville. During a six-month period, the service was discontinued due to low ridership (only 213 passenger-trips were recorded during the service. Upon the 1994 cessation of service, the bus was transferred to Truckee, California for use in its Dial-A-Ride system. As a result of the Alpine County Transit Needs Assessment (LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., 2001) Alpine County reinstituted public transit in the region. From 2003 through 2008, Alpine Mountain Transit (AMT) provided transit service between Markleeville and Minden/Gardnerville on weekdays. Operation of the service was contracted through Douglas Area Rural Transit (DART) out of Gardnerville, NV. In 2008, a series of events occurred that changed the direction of the transit program:  The AMT vehicle experienced mechanical failure and required replacement.  The contract with DART reached its termination date, and DART was unwilling to enter into a new contract resulting in cessation of transit service.  TDA revenues decreased and Alpine County underwent staff reorganization due to budget cuts. As a result, ACLTC implemented a general public DAR program which is now operated by the Community Development (CD) Department. The transit program has limited staff. One part-time driver works four days per week. A Health and Human Services staff member is available to act as a backup driver if the regular transit driver is ill. This occurs infrequently. The Alpine County Equipment/Mechanic Shop coordinator charges roughly 40 hours per year to maintaining transit vehicles. Several administrative staff spend a total of 200 hours on public transit issues. This includes the Community Development Director, Administrative Services staff, and an outside Transportation Consultant. CURRENT TRANSIT SERVICES Regular Alpine County Transit DAR service runs three days per week, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM between the communities of Markleeville, Woodfords, Hung-A-Lel-Ti, Minden, Gardnerville and Dresslerville, and occasionally to South Lake Tahoe ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 18 Woodfords Coleville Woodfords Tribal Community (Hung-A-Lel-Ti) Carson City Sierra Pines Dresslerville Paynesville £ ¤ 395 £ ¤ 50 £ ¤ 50 £ ¤ 395 £ ¤ 50 U V 88 U V 208 U V 207 U V 28 U V 89 U V 341 U V 89 U V 89 U V 88 U V 89 U V 89 U V 28 U V 89 395 5 0 88 8 9 Carso n Main 88 50 5 0 50 88 395 50 88 Minden Kirkwood Kingsbury Mesa Vista Smith Valley Johnson Lane Indian Hills Gardnerville Markleeville Alpine Village South Lake Tahoe Gardnerville Ranchos Zephyr Cove D o u g l a s A l p i n e L y o n E l D o r a d o P l a c e r W a s h o e M o n o S t o r e y N e v a d a C a r s o n C i t y A m a d o r Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community Figure 6 Alpine County Transit Dial-A-Ride Service Area b Placerville/Sacramento (Special Needs) Toiyabe Indian Health Project Coleville Clinic (Special Needs) T T T b Reno/Truckee Special Needs Special Needs Destinations (Thursdays) T Regular Service Area ( Monday-Wednesday) Transit Connections ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 19 and Carson City. Passengers are encouraged to schedule rides 48 hours in advance. One way fares are $2.00 (to Markleeville, Woodfords, Hung-A-Lel-Ti), $4.00 (to Minden, Gardnerville, Dresslerville, and South Lake Tahoe), or $5.00 (to Carson City). There are no discounted fares available. Additional service is available by appointment on Thursdays, for medical and social security needs only. Special needs transportation is available to destinations for which a round trip takes less than a 12 hour period. This typically includes Toiyabe Indian Health Project Clinic in Coleville, Reno, Truckee, Placerville, and Sacramento. Service appointments should be made at least seven days in advance. Unlike the other Alpine County DAR services, Thursday riders must pay the entire cost of the trip, including mileage (based on the current IRS reimbursement rate) and driver labor cost. This fare is often paid through the support program of which the rider is a participant. REGIONAL CONNECTIONS In a County with a small public transit program a review of possibilities for connections to other regional public transit providers is important.  Douglas Area Regional Transit (DART) – Alpine County DAR passengers could request a drop off/pick up at any of the DART Express stops in Minden/Gardnerville which include Wal-Mart, Smiths, the Senior Center and the Gardnerville Ranchos during Alpine County DAR service hours. The DART Express loop operates three roundtrips per weekday. It is more likely that an Alpine County resident would simply request a drop off/pick up from Alpine County Transit to/from the desired destination in Minden/Gardnerville instead of transferring to DART. From DART Express one can transfer to the Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) route 19X Express to Carson City or 20X Lake Express to South Lake Tahoe and Stateline.  Jump Around Carson - Alpine DAR passengers may also request transportation to Carson City where one can connect with the Jump Around Carson (JAC) service to travel within Carson City. Again, it is more likely that an Alpine County passenger would request DAR service directly to their destination in Carson City, as this is part of the regular service area. However, JAC service could be used to travel around Carson City outside of the service hours of Alpine County Transit, if a passenger wished to make a one-way trip to Carson City. JAC offers three routes around Carson City as well as connections to RTC Intercity to Reno, TTD Route 19X to Minden/Gardnerville and 20X to South Lake Tahoe at the downtown transfer plaza. JAC operates hourly service on weekdays from 6:30 AM to 7:30 PM and Saturdays from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM.  Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) – TTD provides three regional routes which provide “triangle” service through the Carson Valley and the Lake Tahoe Basin (19X, 20X, and 21X).  Route 19X makes four round trips between Minden/Gardnerville and Carson City. An Alpine County DAR passenger could catch the 1:43 PM departure from Lampe Park in Gardnerville and reach Carson City by 2:30 PM. However, if the passenger stayed in Carson City for two hours and caught the last 19X southbound trip to Gardnerville at 4:45 PM, the passenger would not be able to take the Alpine County DAR back up the hill to Markleeville. This is not a necessary connection as the passenger could request DAR service directly to Carson City. ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 20  Route 20X operates five weekday commuter roundtrips between Herbig Park in Gardnerville and the Stateline Transit Center Stateline Nevada along SR 207. Unfortunately the last morning departure from Lampe Park (Gardnerville) is 7:00 AM, not allowing an Alpine DAR passenger to make a day trip to Lake Tahoe. An Alpine County passenger could take the 4:08 PM or 5:43 PM 20X bus to Lake Tahoe from Gardnerville to spend the night at the lake and make the return trip the next day.  Route 21X travels over US 50 between Carson City and the Stateline Transit Center in Stateline Nevada. A total of five round trips are offered on weekdays. The earliest departure from the JAC transfer station which an Alpine County resident could connect with would be 2:30 PM. Again this would not allow for a roundtrip to/from Lake Tahoe in one day on this route South Lake Tahoe is part of the regular Alpine County Transit DAR service area with advance reservation. Once in South Lake Tahoe, Alpine County passengers could connect to other TTD services such as skier shuttles to Heavenly ski resort, local south shore transit services, and the Emerald Bay Trolley. Passengers making connections with other services within the South Lake Tahoe area could only make a one way trip, as Alpine County DAR would likely not make two round trips per day to South Lake Tahoe.  Amtrak – From the Stateline Transit Center and South Tahoe in the Lake Tahoe are, travelers can catch Amtrak Thruway buses to all Amtrak destinations. Generally, Amtrak Thruway buses depart the South Tahoe Transit Center and the Stateline Transit Center around 2:30 PM and arrive around 12:30 PM from/to Sacramento. There is no Amtrak service from South Lake Tahoe to the California Zephyr Line to Chicago.  Greyhound – Intercity Greyhound bus service is available out of Carson City, NV.  Connections with Washoe RTC - The RTC Intercity Route provides commuter service between Reno and Carson City with three morning and three evening roundtrips. It would not be possible for Alpine County residents to connect with the RTC intercity service for work purposes. The first connection that can be made is at 4:10 PM. However, passengers could make a one-way trip to Reno and return another day. As Reno is only part of the special needs service area, connections with RTC may be useful to Alpine County residents to access non-medical and social security needs.  Eastern Sierra Transit Authority – If Alpine County residents require intercity transportation to destinations across the country or to an international airport, they could request a DAR trip to the Smiths in Gardnerville and catch the 10:50 AM ESTA Lone Pine to Reno bus to the Reno Airport and Greyhound station with advance reservation. For the return trip (on a different day), the ESTA Reno to Lone Pine route could drop them off at Smiths at 2:55 PM, within the service hours of Alpine County Transit DAR.  Calaveras Transit – The resort community of Bear Valley is located in the westernmost portion of Alpine County off of SR 4. There are only limited services available such as a lodge, general store and residences. During the winter months SR 4 between Bear Valley and Markleeville is closed, making Calaveras County the closest destination for services. Currently Calaveras Transit operates a public transit route only as far east on SR 4 as Arnold, which is 25 miles from Bear Valley. If a connection were provided to ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 21 Calaveras Transit, Alpine County residents could transfer to other routes to reach Amador Transit in Jackson or Tuolumne County Transit at Columbia College.  Amador Transit – The ski resort community of Kirkwood is located on the border of Alpine County and Amador County. Amador Transit’s services extend as far east as Amador Station, 35 miles to the west along SR 88 from Kirkwood. Amador Transit includes weekday service to Sacramento from Jackson.  Carson Valley Airporter – An airport shuttle operated by Amador Stage Lines provides transportation between Gardnerville, Minden, Carson City, Reno International Airport, and Reno Bowl Center. The shuttle generally makes four round trips per day with advance reservation. Shuttle stops include the Gardnerville Community Center, Carson Valley Inn, Minden Holiday Inn, Carson City Transit Center and other Carson City Hotels. The one-way fare for a trip from Gardnerville to the Reno Airport is around $24.00. VEHICLE AND FACILITIES Vehicles In 2009, ACLTC purchased a minivan to operate the Dial-A-Ride service. This vehicle is equipped with a wheelchair ramp and can accommodate up to four ambulatory passengers and one driver or one wheelchair passenger, one ambulatory passenger and one driver. The vehicle is not four wheel drive and therefore cannot be operated safely on snow days. The minivan has approximately 96,746 miles on it and is close to the end of its 100,000 mile life expectancy according to FTA guidelines. ACLTC recently purchased a 2014 Glaval Chevrolet diesel Type A small bus with Proposition 1B (PTMISEA) funds. The bus can carry eight passengers plus one wheelchair and is equipped with automatic chains and security cameras. Both vehicles are used to operate DAR service depending on the number of passengers requesting service. After the minivan reaches the end of its useful life, it is not expected to be replaced with Federal funds but may be replaced with a surplussed County vehicle. The bus may not need to be replaced for another eight years. At that time the existing bus will be maintained by Alpine County as a backup vehicle. Facilities The DAR van is stored in the County yard at 50 Diamond Valley Road. There are no bus shelters or benches in Alpine County. As the County does not currently operate a fixed-route system, there are no bus stop signs. ALPINE COUNTY TRANSIT OPERATING AND FINANCIAL STATISTICS Historical Ridership and Service Levels The Transportation Development Act (TDA) Triennial Performance Audit Guidebook outlines that ridership data should be collected in the form of unlinked trips. This is defined as trips that involve a single boarding and single embarkment. After reviewing the Alpine County DAR reservation log from January 2015 to June 2015, it appears that ridership numbers refer to the number of passenger linked trips (usually round trips) not unlinked passenger trips. Therefore the data in Tables 8 – 11 and 14 represent trends in the number of passenger linked trips not ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 22 one-way passenger-trips which is typically identified in a short range transit plan. One-way passenger-trip data is estimated from 6 months of DAR Reservation Logs for the performance analysis in Table 15. Historical passenger trends and service levels (in terms of vehicle service hours) from Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-11(the first full year of Alpine County Transit DAR) to FY 2014-15 are presented in Table 8. As shown in Table 8 and Figure 7, the annual number of passenger linked trips decreased by 24.5 percent over this five year time period while vehicle service hours increased by 3.0 percent. FY 2010-11 was the first full year the Alpine County operated the Dial-A-Ride service. As such, staff was unfamiliar with tracking operating statistics and may have double counted some passenger-trips. It is possible that ridership data was tracked as one-way passenger trips in FY 2010-11 but changed to the number of passenger linked trips in later years. Additionally, ridership on demand response services can fluctuate significantly if one frequent rider moves or no longer needs service. Over the past four years ridership on the Alpine County DAR service has remained relatively constant with about 450 passenger linked trips per year. Annual vehicle service hours have ranged anywhere from 803 to 1,199 hours. Fiscal Year Passenger Linked Trips(1) Vehicle Service Hours 2010-11 [PHONE REDACTED]-12 457 1,093 2012-13 448 1,199 2013-14 [PHONE REDACTED]-15 461 827 Total 1,793 4,050 # Change FY 10/11 to FY 14/15 -150 24 % Change FY 10/11 to FY 14/15 -24.5% 3.0% TABLE 8: Alpine DAR Historic Passenger and Service Levels Note 1: Ridership w as recorded as the number of passenger linked trips (usually round trips) as opposed to unlinked one-w ay passenger trips 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 One Way Passenger‐Trips Figure 7: Alpine DAR Historic Passenger Trends ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 23 Ridership As shown in Table 9 and Figure 8, the number of passenger linked trips on Alpine County Transit DAR rider has varied over the past five years from a low of 14 passengers in August of FY 2014-15 to a high of 72 passengers in December of FY 2010-11. On average, Alpine County Transit DAR carries about 40 passenger linked trips per month. FY 2014-15 Month FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 July 36 21 49 67 44 August 50 51 43 34 14 September 40 39 33 34 32 October 58 34 41 35 24 November 51 36 36 27 28 December 72 43 25 25 28 January 67 44 39 24 33 February 54 33 24 31 48 March 67 33 35 40 50 April 46 30 43 34 56 May 39 42 40 34 43 June 31 51 40 42 61 Total 611 457 448 427 461 Source: Alpine County TABLE 9: Alpine DAR Passenger Trends # of Passenger Linked Trips 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 One Way Passenger‐Trips Figure 8: Alpine DAR Five Year Passenger Trends FY 2010‐11 FY 2011‐12 FY 2012‐13 FY 2013‐14 FY 2014‐15 ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 24 Ridership by Passenger Type Nearly all of Alpine County DAR passengers who require transportation to various appointments or services are part of a government sponsored support program. Table 10 presents FY 2014- 15 ridership by passenger or client type. Just over half or 52.9 percent of the total 480 passenger linked trips were associated with Alpine County Health and Human Services. Another 28.1 percent or 135 linked trips were taken by Behavioral Health Services clients. An additional 14.4 percent or 69 linked trips were associated with other county support programs. Only four linked passenger trips were made by general public fare paying passengers. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), passengers needing assistance to make the journey may travel with a personal care attendant or caregiver. Personal care attendants ride free of charge. In 2014-15, 18 linked passenger trips were made by personal care attendants. Ridership by Day Alpine County Transit DAR operates regular service to the Markleeville, Woodfords, Hung-A- Lel-Ti, Minden, Gardnerville, South Lake Tahoe and Carson City on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays for all trip purposes. On Thursdays, transportation can be requested to anywhere within a 12 hour round trip time period for medical and social security purposes only. On Special Needs days, riders (or the support program associated with the rider) must pay for the full cost of the trip. As shown in Table 11 and Figure 9, Special Needs Thursday ridership accounts for 15.2 percent of total annual FY 2014-15 linked passenger trips. On the regular service days, Wednesday accounts for a higher proportion of average daily ridership (30.4 percent). Tuesday is the second most popular day (30.4 percent), followed by Monday at 26.7 percent. In FY 2014-15, DAR operated 142 days. This equates to an average of 3.4 linked passenger trips per service day. TABLE 10: Alpine County Transit DAR Passenger Trends by Type FY 2014-15 Passenger/Client Type Linked Passenger Trips % of Total Health and Human Services 254 52.9% Behavioral Health Services 135 28.1% Other Support Program 69 14.4% General Public 4 0.8% Caregiver 18 3.8% Total 480 100.0% Source: Alpine County ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine Cou unty 2015 Short Range Trans Day of Wee Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday (Special Nee Source: Alpine TABLE 1 Passenge sit Plan ek eds) To e County 1: Alpine C ers by Day Linke Passen Trips 128 133 146 73 otal 480 County Tr y of Week L ed ger s % of 26 27 30 15 100 ransit DAR k SC Transporta f Total 6.7% 7.7% 0.4% 5.2% 0.0% R ation Consultan Pa nts Inc. age 25 ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 26 Financial Characteristics Table 12 illustrates the breakdown of total FY 2014-15 Alpine County Transit operating revenues. As indicated, the Alpine County Transit Services Fund had a small budget of $82,330 in FY 2014-15. In California, Transportation Development Act Local Transportation Fund (LTF) is typically the primary source of revenue for transit operations and is derived from state sales tax. TDA State Transit Assistance (STA) is derived from state sales tax on diesel fuel. Limited or no STA is available in Alpine County annually. As such this funding source is typically saved for local match for capital expenses but can be used to pay for operating expenses. In Alpine County LTF accounted for 40.1 percent of the total operations budget or $33,000. Alpine County also receives roughly $40,000 in FTA funding through the 5311 rural transit program. Cost Allocation Model When developing and evaluating service alternatives, it is useful to have a cost model that can accurately show the financial impact of any proposed change. Typically a cost allocation model for public transit services allocates the total costs by service quantity (fixed, hours, and miles). Systemwide cost factors (cost per hour, cost per mile, and fixed costs) are then applied to the actual or proposed miles and hours for each route/service to estimate the operating cost of each service. Table 13 presents the cost allocation model for Alpine County Transit DAR based on actual FY 2014-15 costs. Total transit services fund operating expenses were $69,297 for FY 2014-15. Of this total, $19,401 is considered fixed costs. These include administrative costs which will not change if overall transit service is increased or decreased. Roughly $43,505 is attributed to expenses such as driver salaries/benefits and insurance which increase or decrease depending on the level of vehicle service hours provided. Lastly, vehicle service mile dependent costs such as vehicle maintenance and fuel totaled to $6,391 in FY 2014-15. The next step is to divide the allocated expenses by vehicle service hours and miles from FY 2014-15. This equates to the following cost model equation: FY 2014-15 total operating expenses = $52.58 per vehicle service hour + $0.38 per vehicle service mile + $19,401 fixed costs TABLE 12: Alpine County Transit DAR Revenues FY 2014-15 Operating Revenues $ % Transportation Development Act (TDA) - LTF $33,000 40.1% Transportation Development Act (TDA) - STA $3,000 3.6% Federal Transit Administration (FTA) $40,000 48.6% Interest $81 0.1% Miscellaneous $6,249 7.6% Total $82,330 100% Source: FY 2014-15 Actual Transit Services Fund Budget ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 27 Historical Performance Trends An important part of a transit plan update is to evaluate overall performance of the transit system. Table 14 presents a review of typical transit operating performance indicators for the previous five years that Alpine County Transit DAR has been operating. It should be noted that ridership data represents linked passenger trips and it is unclear if ridership was recorded in the same manner for all five years. Actual Year-End Budget Allocation Variable Total Line Item Fixed Hourly Per Mile Expense Operating Expenses Salaries & Wages $22,166 $22,166 Health Insurance $16,622 $16,622 PERS $3,104 $3,104 Medicare $283 $283 Social Security $199 $199 Vehicle Fuels $3,929 $3,929 Spec Services and Supplies $999 $999 Insurance $1,131 $1,131 Print, Pub, Legal Notice $125 $125 Vehicle Equip & Maint $2,462 $2,462 Admin Support Charges $7,250 $7,250 Indirect Cost $0 $0 Professional Services $11,028 $11,028 Total Expenses $19,401 $43,505 $6,391 $69,297 Service Factors for FY 2014-15 Vehicle Service Hours Vehicle Service Miles 827 16,899 Vehicle Service Hour Cost Factor $52.58 Vehicle Service Mile Cost Factor $0.38 Annual Fixed Cost $19,401 Source: Alpine County Transit Services Fund FY 2014-15 Operating Budget TABLE 13: Alpine County Transit DAR Fiscal Year 2014-15 Expenses & Cost Allocation ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 28  Linked Passenger-Trips per Vehicle-Hour of Service - An important performance measure is the degree of efficiency or productivity of the transit system. (Figure 10) This is defined as the number of linked passenger trips provided per vehicle service hour. Alpine County Transit DAR productivity averaged below one linked passenger trip (generally round trip) per vehicle service hour for the entire five year period. Specific productivity levels ranged from 0.37 trips per hour in 2012-13 to 0.76 trips per hour in FY 2010-11.  Linked Passenger-Trips per Vehicle-Mile of Service - Another measure of service effectiveness is the number of linked passenger trips provided per vehicle service mile (Figure 11). As with linked passenger-trips per hour, linked passenger-trips per mile is quite low on Alpine County Transit DAR and ranged anywhere from 0.02 to 0.04 trips per mile. The long distances travelled for this DAR service contribute to the low performance. As an example the Toiyabe Indian Health Project Clinic in Coleville could be a 50 mile one-way trip during the winter months when Monitor Pass is closed.  Operating Cost per Linked Passenger-Trip - The financial efficiency of a system can be measured by the operating cost per linked passenger-trip, as presented in Figure 12. There has been a downward trend in operating cost per trip over the past three years from a high of $164.81 to $150.32, despite an actual increase in operating costs. TABLE 14: Alpine County Transit Historical DAR Performance Trends 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Operating Data Operating Cost $61,127 $62,971 $73,833 $66,393 $69,297 Passenger Fares $2,855 $3,343 $5,321 $5,336 $6,827 Linked Passenger Trips 611 457 448 427 461 Vehicle Service Hours 803 1,093 1,199 931 827 Vehicle Service Miles 16,561 19,777 17,260 17,492 16,899 Performance Measures Passengers per VSH 0.76 0.42 0.37 0.46 0.56 Passengers per VSM 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03 Operating Cost per Passenger $100.04 $137.79 $164.81 $155.49 $150.32 Operating Cost per VSH $76.12 $57.63 $61.60 $71.29 $83.75 Operating Subsidy per Passenger $95.37 $130.48 $152.93 $142.99 $135.51 Farebox Recovery Ratio 4.7% 5.3% 7.2% 8.0% 9.9% Source: Alpine County Fiscal Year ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine Cou unty 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultan Pa nts Inc. age 29 ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Trans Page 30  O in T 2 sportation Cons Operating Co ndicator of a Transit DAR’s 011-12 whe sultants Inc. ost per Veh transit syste s operating c n costs per hicle Service em’s cost eff cost per hou hour were o e Hour - Op ficiency (Fig ur was $83.7 n the order o Alpine Cou perating cost gure 13). In F 75. This repr of $57.63. unty 2015 Shor t per hour is FY 2014-15, resents an in rt Range Trans another key Alpine Cou ncrease sinc sit Plan y nty ce FY ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine Cou  O in im (o tr a s p  F th d im b 5 o a im o b th fa unty 2015 Shor Operating Su n Alpine Cou mportant per operating co rip, subsidy p s passenger ignificant sh ublic dollars arebox Rec he farebox re ividing pass mportant as y the Transp ,000 people ther than the farebox rati mprove upon ver the past e attributed he entire cos arebox ratio rt Range Trans ubsidy per unty are fund rformance in ost minus pas per trip has d r fares have are of rides s required to covery Ratio ecovery ratio enger fares a measurem portation De , ACLTC ha e 10 percent o requireme n this rate ea five years fr to the fact th st of the trip in FY 2014- sit Plan Linked Pas ded by a com ndicator is to ssenger fare decreased o increased. G taken by Alp operate the o - Another m o, which is il by operating ment in Califo velopment A s the option t minimum u ent of one pe ach year. Pa rom $2,855 hat passeng on Special N 15. ssenger-Trip mbination of determine t es) per pass over the past Given that c pine County service is g measure of lustrated in g costs. The ornia for me Act. As Alpin to set a spe usually requi ercent for pu assenger fare to $6,827 or ers (or the c Needs Thurs L p (Figure 14 federal and the amount o senger-trip. S t three years county suppo Transit DAR greater than transit servic Figure 15. F e farebox rec eting the ma ne County ha ecific farebox red for rural ublic transit s e revenue h r 139 percen county suppo sdays. The r SC Transporta 4) - As public state tax pa of operating Similar to op s from $152 ort programs R passenge what is show ce efficiency Farebox ratio covery ratio andated min as a populat x ratio for tra areas. The service with has increase nt. Much of t ort program) result is nea ation Consultan Pa c transit serv ayer money, subsidy perating cost .93 to $135. s pay for a rs, the actua wn in Figure y is provided o is calculate is particularl nimums requ tion of less t ansit service ACLTC ado the goal to d significant the increase ) must pay fo rly a 10 perc nts Inc. age 31 vices an t per 91 al e 14. d by ed by ly uired han es opted tly can or cent ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Trans Page 32 FY 2014- Typically passenge January trips. Acc This equ presents trip numb  O A se p a fo m O h  O p re  O o d p sportation Cons -15 Perform y ridership da er trips as h 2015 – June cording to th ates estimat the perform bers instead One-way Pas Alpine County ervice hour. assenger-tri nd services or Alpine Co miles or 25 m One of the pr elp Alpine C One-way Pas assenger tri epresentativ Operating Co ne-way pass ifficult for Al opulations a sultants Inc. mance Analy ata is collect as been don e 2015 were e logs, DAR ted FY 2014 mance measu of linked pa ssenger-Tri y Transit DA A good prod ps per hour. from Alpine unty DAR is minutes. Also rimary object County Trans ssenger-Tri ps per vehic e of long dis ost per One senger trip o pine County and shorter t ysis ted in the for ne in Alpine reviewed to R carried on 4-15 ridershi ures describ assenger trip ips per Veh AR productiv ductivity sta . The nature County con s from Markle o it is not unc tives of this sit DAR carry ips per Veh cle mile is es stances trave e-way Passe of $60.15 is o y to be cost e rip rm of one-wa County. The o estimate an average 96 p of 1,152 o bed above us ps. icle-Hour o vity was 1.39 ndard for a r e of the dista ntributes to p eeville to Ga common for transit plan y more than icle Service stimated at 0 elled per trip enger Trip – on the high e effective com Alpine Cou ay passenge erefore, DAR nnual FY 20 one-way pa one-way pass sing FY 201 of Service – 9 one-way pa rural DAR se ances neede poor product ardnerville, a the vehicle update is to one passen e Mile – In F 0.07. Again t p. – The FY 20 end for a rur mpared to ot unty 2015 Shor er trips as op R reservation 014-15 one-w assenger trip senger trips 4-15 one-wa Table 15 de assenger tri ervice is aro ed to travel to tivity. A typic a distance of to be carryin analyze opt nger at a tim FY 2014-15, this low num 014-15 opera ral DAR serv ther areas w rt Range Trans pposed to lin n logs from way passen ps per month . Table 15 ay passenge emonstrates ps per vehic ound two to t o reach good cal one-way f roughly 20 ng one perso tions that wi me. one-way mber is ating cost pe vice. Again i with larger sit Plan nked nger h. er- that cle three ds trip on. ll er it is ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 33  Operating Subsidy per One-way Passenger Trip –The operating subsidy (operating cost minus passenger fares) per one-way trip is $54.23 in FY 2014-15. It is important to note that as indicated in Table 10 less than one percent of linked trips are paid for by the general public. All other fares are paid through a county support program. Therefore, almost the entire operating cost of each one-way trip is paid through some type of public subsidy. This could be Health and Human Services, Behavioral Health, or sales tax revenue (TDA funds). Origin – Destination Patterns DAR Reservations Logs from January to June 2015 provide an overview of general travel patterns on Alpine County Transit DAR. Table 16 presents average one-way trip origin – destination pairs for the six month period. Table 17 presents the data in terms of the proportion of total average one-way passenger trips. Appendix A presents origin- destination pair tables for each month. As shown, the most common trip pattern is within Alpine County between the Hung-A-Lel-Ti community and Markleeville with 9.0 one-way passenger trips per month from Markleeville to Hung-A-Lel-Ti and 8.8 one way passenger trips per month in the other direction. The next most common origin – destination pair is within a 20 mile radius of Markleeville between Hung-A-Lel-Ti and Gardnerville with 6.2 average one-way passenger trips in one direction and 5.7 in the other direction. On average, around 7.3 one-way passenger trips end in Carson City each month and 5.0 trips end in South Lake Tahoe. Both these destinations are located within the regular service area TABLE 15: Alpine County Transit DAR Performance Analysis FY 2014-15 Fiscal Year 2014-15 Operating Data Operating Cost $69,297 Passenger Fares $6,827 One-way Passenger Trips(1) 1,152 Vehicle Service Hours 827 Vehicle Service Miles 16,899 Performance Measures Passengers per VSH 1.39 Passengers per VSM 0.07 Operating Cost per Passenger $60.15 Operating Cost per VSH $83.75 Operating Subsidy per Passenger $54.23 Farebox Recovery Ratio 9.9% Source: Alpine County Note 1: Estimated one-w ay passenger trips from DAR reservations logs for January - June 2015. ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 34 TABLE 16: Alpine County DAR Average Origin - Destination Pattern Average January - June 2015 Markleeville Paynesville Pleasant Valley Sierra Pines Woodfords Hung-A- Lel-Ti Dresslerville Gardnerville Minden Carson City Lake Tahoe Coleville Placerville Truckee Total Markleeville 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 2.5 0.2 0.8 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 13.5 Paynesville 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.8 Pleasant Valley 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.5 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 Sierra Pines 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.2 Woodfords 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.2 1.0 5.3 0.2 1.5 0.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 11.8 Hung-A-Lel-Ti 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 1.3 5.7 0.0 3.8 3.8 1.7 1.0 0.2 26.7 Dresslerville 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 Gardnerville 3.5 0.7 0.8 0.3 4.2 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.7 Minden 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 Carson 0.8 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.5 3.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 Lake Tahoe 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 Coleville 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.8 1.7 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 Placerville 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Truckee 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Total 14.0 2.7 2.3 1.3 9.8 27.5 2.3 15.7 0.8 7.3 5.0 6.0 1.0 0.2 96.0 Source: Alpine County Alpine County Destinations Regular Service Area < 20 miles Special Needs Destinations Regular Service Area > 20 miles Origins ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 35 TABLE 17: Alpine County DAR - Origin - Destination Patterns Average January - June 2015 % of Total Average One-Way Passenger-Trips Markleeville Paynesville Pleasant Valley Sierra Pines Woodfords Hung-A- Lel-Ti Dresslerville Gardnerville Minden Carson City Lake Tahoe Coleville Placerville Truckee Total Markleeville 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 0% 3% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 14% Paynesville 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 3% Pleasant Valley 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% Sierra Pines 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% Woodfords 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 6% 0% 2% 1% 2% 0% 0% 12% Hung-A-Lel-Ti 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 6% 0% 4% 4% 2% 1% 0% 28% Dresslerville 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% Gardnerville 4% 1% 1% 0% 4% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 16% Minden 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% Carson 1% 0% 1% 0% 2% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% Lake Tahoe 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% Coleville 1% 1% 0% 1% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% Placerville 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% Truckee 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total 15% 3% 2% 1% 10% 29% 2% 16% 1% 8% 5% 6% 1% 0% 100% Source: Alpine County Origins Alpine County Destinations Regular Service Area < 20 miles Regular Service Area Special Needs Destinations ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 36 but represent a trip greater than 20 miles one-way. Of the special needs destinations, the Toiyabe Indian Health Project Clinic in Coleville is the most popular destination, around 6 one- way passenger trips per month end there. According to the reservation logs, DAR trips are grouped by destination each service day. However, it is not unusual for DAR to make two separate round trips to longer destinations in one day. For example, the DAR make take one passenger to Lake Tahoe in the morning and then take one passenger to Gardnerville or Carson City later that day. OTHER TRANSPORTATION PROVIDERS IN ALPINE COUNTY In addition to DAR, other agencies or private companies provide transportation in Alpine County. Washoe Tribe Native Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) Washoe Tribe Native TANF offers a variety of services and assistance (including transportation) to Native American Families in an effort to reduce long term dependence on government aid. The purpose of the program is to:  To provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or the homes of relatives.  To end dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage.  To prevent and reduce out of wedlock pregnancies  To encourage the formation and maintenance of two parent families Washoe Native TANF transportation services include transportation of eligible families to summer school, computer classes in the Carson Valley area, wellness programs or other programs which help fulfil the TANF goals. Tribal TANF has two vehicles available: 1) Ford Expedition – 8 seats and 2) Chevrolet Trailblazer. One full-time driver is employed Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM with some flexibility for overtime. Destinations are usually limited to Carson Valley/Reno area but occasionally TANF will provide transportation to Sacramento/Placerville. Some of these transportation services may be available for non-native Alpine County residents through the “Other Eligible” program. From January 2015 to June 2015, Tribal TANF provided a total of 121 client related transports. This equates to roughly 20 transports per month. If the TANF driver is not available, TANF will provide cash vouchers for Alpine County DAR to eligible program participants. In 2013, TANF dispersed $289 in vouchers to clients. In 2014, $186 was dispersed. No vouchers have been dispersed as of June 2015. Kirkwood Private tour companies operate shuttle buses in the winter time from destinations such as the San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento and Lake Tahoe to Kirkwood ski resort. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 37 During the busy season (December to March), Kirkwood Ski Resort operates a daily shuttle for employees living in South Lake Tahoe and working in Kirkwood. The bus picks up passengers at Ski Run Boulevard, the Y, and Meyers and arrives at Kirkwood by 7:00 AM. The return trip departs the ski area at 5:00 PM. Two days per week, the same shuttle is used to provide trips to South Lake Tahoe from Kirkwood for employees living in employee housing in Kirkwood without a vehicle. This bus departs Kirkwood around 8:00 AM and arrives in South Lake Tahoe around 9:00 AM. The return trip departs South Lake Tahoe at 3:30 PM. Kirkwood ski resort also provides incentives for employees to carpool to work from South Lake Tahoe. In exchange for providing rides for other employees, the driver receives a gift card which can be used for many types of services at Kirkwood Ski Resort including gas, food, and beverage. This program is only available from November 15 until the ski resort closes for the summer. Alpine County Support Programs Health and Human Services In the past the Alpine County Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) used department owned vehicles to transport clients to agency sponsored programs, pick up prescriptions and medical appointments outside of Alpine County. With the implementation of Alpine County DAR, most of these needs are filled by public transit but still paid for in part or in full through the HHS department. On days the DAR does not operate or for immediate needs when DAR is providing a different trip out of town, HHS will provide transportation locally or to Minden/ Gardnerville area, Carson City, Reno, South Lake Tahoe. On occasion HHS will travel to Placerville, Truckee, Sacramento or as far as San Francisco if necessary. HHS has a non- wheelchair accessible minivan and a part-time driver who works around 19 hours per week. The HHS driver also acts as a backup driver for DAR. HHS staff has been closely involved in the SRTP update process and have identified the following transit needs in Alpine County which are not currently served or are underserved:  Transportation for Special Events: One example is transportation to the Health Fair at Turtle Rock Park, September 26th from 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM, particularly from Hung-A- Lel-Ti. Another example is “Senior Soak” on Mondays at Grover Hot Springs. Recreational outings are important for the health and well-being for otherwise homebound seniors.  Clients sometimes need a ride home from HHS to local destinations in Alpine County if they have received commodities such as food and other necessities.  The need for transportation is not limited to Monday – Thursday. The need for transit service on days DAR travels out of town or does not operate has been identified by HHS staff. Behavioral Health Services The Alpine County Behavioral Health Services department offers comprehensive mental health and substance abuse services which may involve medical appointments or counseling outside Alpine County. Clients in need of transportation are referred to Alpine County DAR. The department will pay the fare for eligible client trips. ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 38 PUBLIC TRANSIT NEEDS IN ALPINE COUNTY A variety of sources were reviewed to obtain a better understanding of where and how often Alpine County residents require public transportation. Existing Planning Documents: Needs Identified A key step in any planning process is the consideration of previously completed transit studies and other ongoing planning processes in the area. For Alpine County, recent and relevant planning documents are in the form of Triennial Performance Audits (TPAs). According to Transportation Development Act (TDA) statutes, entities receiving TDA funds must commission regular TPAs. Findings and recommendations defined in the recent TPAs are described below. Alpine County Local Transportation Commission –Triennial Performance Audit (FY 09/10 - FY 11/12) LSC Transportation Consultants conducted a performance audit of ACLTC for Fiscal Years 2009/10 – 2011/12. Overall, the study concluded that the ACLTC efficiently provides regional transit services given the budget allotted. The TPA recommended increased oversight of Alpine County Transit through annual review and analysis of ridership statistics. Alpine Transit Operator –Triennial Performance Audit (FY 09/10 - FY 11/12) LSC Transportation Consultants conducted a performance audit of Alpine Transit Operator for Fiscal Years 2009/10 – 2011/12. The key findings within the audit include:  Ridership stayed relatively constant during the audit period  The farebox ratio increased from 3.1 to 4.5 percent during the audit period  TDA requirements were met except for the definition of various performance measures  Most of the previous audit recommendations had been implemented The following recommendations resulted from the audit:  Vehicle service hours and miles, one way passenger-trips, and Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) employee hours should be tracked according to the definitions laid out in the Performance Audit Guidebook  Operating and vehicle data should be compared to ensure the proper recording and treatment of one way passenger-trips, fares, and driving routes  At the end of each fiscal year, DAR performance reports should be submitted to the ACLTC Alpine County Short Range Transit Plan (2010) The most recent Short Range Transit Plan was updated in 2010. After much debate, it was recommended that Alpine County implement a general public DAR service three days a week to replace the existing fixed route service to Minden/Gardnerville. This provided Alpine County residents with greater flexibility in transit destinations. The Alpine County Community ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 39 Development Department implemented this plan element and expanded service to include special needs destinations on Thursdays. The SRTP also recommended a transportation reimbursement/volunteer driver program to fill more specialized transportation needs. Special needs Thursdays essentially fills this need for medical and social security purposes. Unmet Transit Needs The Transportation Development Act (TDA) specifies that recipients of TDA funding conduct an annual assessment of transit needs within their jurisdiction before TDA funds are allotted to streets and roads. This assessment consists of two major steps: the identification of Unmet Transit Needs and a determination of whether these needs are Reasonable to Meet. “Unmet Transit Needs are defined as those transit needs which are not being met. “Reasonable to Meet’ is defined as those unmet transit needs that the ACLTC finds are within its ability to satisfy, in whole or in part, based on consideration of such factors such as equity, timing, feasibility, public safety, community acceptance, economy (short-term and long-term), cost effectiveness, operational efficiency, available funding and other factors related to providing transit services deemed appropriate by the ACLTC.” Review of unmet transit needs findings can provide insight into transit improvements requested by the public. The first step in the Unmet Transit Needs Process is for the Social Service Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) to meet to discuss unmet transit needs and make a recommendation to the LTC. On May 5th, 2015, the SSTAC held a meeting in conjunction with the kick-off meeting for this SRTP update. The following transit needs were discussed:  Transportation to the HHS Health Fair at Turtle Rock Park on September 26th  Transportation to work for Hung-A-Lel-Ti residents. This is challenging as it is outside of the hours of DAR. Also employees may only have temporary employment with random shift times which change from one person to another.  Transportation for HHS clients is needed when the DAR is providing an out of the area trip or not in service. Examples include: HHS clients bring commodities home from the HHS office which are difficult to carry.  There is not much room in the budget for an additional driver.  Special trips to Grover Hot Springs have been requested by the Mental Health Department.  A few young adults living in Kirkwood require transportation to services in Woodfords On May 19, 2015 the official unmet transit needs hearing was held by the ACLTC at the Board Chambers in Markleeville. The meeting acknowledged the new, larger (9-person) transit vehicle that was acquired as a result of needs brought up at previous Unmet Transit Needs Hearing. After no public comment was provided and per the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council’s recommendation, the LTC found that there were no existing reasonable to meet needs. ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 40 Community Survey Results A community survey was conducted in the spring and summer of 2015 to gauge the demographics and transit needs within Alpine County. The survey was posted on the Survey Monkey website and distributed by the HHS department and the DAR driver. HHS staff posted a flyer advertising the availability of the survey at Woodfords Station, post office, general store, library, County Administration and with the resident newspaper. Tribal TANF distributed the survey through their newsletter. The survey was taken by 23 county residents, though not every surveyor responded to each question. The survey results are as follows:  Respondent Demographics:  Markleeville was identified as the community of residence for 43.4 percent of the survey respondents. Hung-a-lel-ti and Woodfords also represent a significant portion of survey respondents.  Roughly 21 of the 23 respondents speak English as their “only language.” Both of the 2 multilingual respondents indicate that they speak English “very well.”  Out of the survey respondents, 17 have a car and driver’s license, whereas 6 do not own a car and 5 do not have a license.  Dial-A-Ride:  Of the 13 respondents who utilize Dial-A-Ride, the majority (6 persons) travel to Markleeville. Other DAR destinations include Gardnerville, Carson, Coleville, and Walker.  Transportation to Work:  Only 4 respondents indicate the need for transit to work.  Common work start times range from early to late morning (7 AM to 10 AM) and popular end times fall in the late afternoon (3:30 PM to 4:30 PM). The outlier start time is at 2:00 PM and end time is at 9:00 PM.  Common work days of respondents vary throughout the entire week.  Popular work locations include Gardnerville, South Lake Tahoe, and Hope Valley.  Transportation to Medical & Dental Appointments:  A substantial 16 respondents (70.0 percent) indicate that they need transportation to medical and dental appointments.  The locations of these appointments vary greatly near the Eastern and Northern regions of California and Western Nevada. The Toiyabe Indian Health Clinic in Coleville accounts for the medical destination for 6 (out of 16 total) respondents.  Transportation to Shopping/Errands  There are 15 respondents that need transportation to shopping/errands, while 6 do not.  Gardnerville (12 respondents) and Carson City (4 respondents) represent the most common shopping/errands destinations. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 41  Smiths, Raley’s, and Walmart each draw 4-5 of the respondents for regular shopping/errands.  Transportation to other travel options:  There are 9 respondents that need to make connections to other outside areas.  According to the survey, connections to transit services that travel to Tahoe are the most needed connections. A summary of additional comments are provided below. Survey results are presented in Appendix B.  Service more days of the week (8 responses)  Expand service hours (2 responses)  Service to UCD or UCSF  Service to Tahoe Community College  Hours that allow commute trips to work  Not a needed service  Good to know that DAR is available for when I may need it in the future  Important service for elderly and those without a car Kirkwood The ski resort community of Kirkwood is separated from county support services in Woodfords by 20 miles. Alpine County DAR does not serve this area and the only transportation available is an employee shuttle operated by the ski resort during the winter months. The only commercial facility is the local general store. Recently, Alpine County has received a few requests for transportation service to/from Kirkwood. Several year round employees of the resort do not have a vehicle available and essentially have no way to travel outside of Kirkwood except by hitchhiking or carpooling during the non-winter season. Kirkwood residents have expressed a need for some type of transportation option to take employees from Kirkwood to either Lake Tahoe or the Minden/Gardnerville area for shopping and other services. Bear Valley Bear Valley is another ski resort community located in the southwest portion of the county. Although the community is only 35 miles from Markleeville on SR 4, the portion of the highway in between the two communities is closed during the winter months. Therefore services in Calaveras County are closer than Alpine County services. Alpine County DAR does not serve this area and would be impractical during the winter months. Calaveras Transit only travels as far as Arnold on SR 4. In the past, Calaveras Transit operated a ski bus for the general public from San Andreas to Bear Valley. This route was terminated due to funding constraints. The Bear Valley Ski Resort transports employees from Avery to the resort during the winter months but this is not open to the general public. The Bear Valley Parents Group is active in the community and has established a Bear Valley Summer Youth Camp. The Bear Valley Parents Group would like to see some type of joint effort between Alpine County and Calaveras County to provide transportation for children to the summer camp from Angels Camp, and Arnold in Calaveras County. Additionally, there is a need to transport campers to local activities in Bear Valley. ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 42 Hung-A-Lel-Ti Historically, the primary transportation need for Hung-A-Lel-Ti residents has been the availability of consistent transportation to employment in Minden/Gardnerville. Transportation to summer school in the Carson Valley is another need which has been identified. Community residents without a vehicle available would have difficulty commuting to Minden/Gardnerville on a regular basis within DAR service hours. The Native TANF program fulfills some community training and education needs. Other requests for transit service from community members include transportation for special events. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 43 Chapter 4 Alternatives The service alternatives presented below include an analysis of resources necessary to implement the alternative (including capital equipment and cost of the service), ridership impacts, and expected fare revenues. The advantages and disadvantages of each alternative are also described. The preferred alternatives will be selected upon review of this document, and a service plan will be developed and become part of the Final Plan, to follow. SERVICE ALTERNATIVES When reviewing the alternatives, the reader should consider that any major increases in the cost of services to implement an alternative will require either an additional revenue stream for transit (not highly likely) or an equivalent reduction in services in another area. When determining the strength of a service alternative, performance measures and improvement in overall mobility should be considered. These objectives are both quantitative and qualitative considerations. In order to estimate the operating cost of each alternative a projected cost model was developed using the estimated FY 2015-16 Alpine County Transit Operations Budget (Table 18). Annual vehicle service hours and vehicle service mile quantities were based on the average annual amounts from FY 2010-11 to 2014-15. Alpine County projects that a total of $55,000 of LTF funding will be available to Alpine County. Of that amount roughly $15,000 is needed for TDA administration, leaving $33,000 available for transit operations. Another $40,000 of FTA 5311 grant funding is expected in FY 2015-16. This equates to a FY 2015-16 Alpine County Transit DAR operating budget of $73,000. As shown in Table 19 each service alternative is compared to the FY 2015-16 budget in an effort to determine financial feasibility. Status Quo A good starting point for the evaluation of service alternatives is the consideration of the impacts of the “status quo” – if current services remain unchanged over the upcoming planning period. Assuming 970 annual vehicle service hours and 17,600 annual vehicle service miles, Alpine County DAR’s annual operating subsidy will be $40,760. Adding in annual fixed costs, the total operating cost will be $63,540. This leaves around $9,460 in revenue available for potential new service. Improve Connectivity to the Lake Tahoe Area According to the community surveys, four out of the nine respondents who stated that they need to make connections with other bus services identified the Lake Tahoe area as the connection point. Another 4 out of 23 total survey respondents identified Lake Tahoe as a destination for either work, shopping, or medical appointments. The Stateline Transit Center is roughly 32 miles from Markleeville (via either Luther Pass or Spooner Summit) and the South Transit Center is 28 miles from Markleeville via Luther Pass. There are two ways Alpine County residents can currently connect with services and buses in the Tahoe area: 1) Direct DAR service to Tahoe and 2) Transfer to TTD in the Carson Valley. South Lake Tahoe is part of the regular Alpine County DAR service area. As such, the DAR will travel to South Lake Tahoe usually once a day and layover for a period of around one to one ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 44 and a half hours. Most Alpine county residents travel to the medical facilities at around Barton Hospital, near the TTD’s South Y Transit Center. One Alpine County resident uses DAR to attend classes at Lake Tahoe Community College two days a week, also in South Lake Tahoe. The student attends classes all day and finds an alternative ride home. In terms of connectivity, options to connect with intercity transit services such as Amtrak are good as long as the passenger doesn’t return the same day and returns on a day which DAR operates. Alpine residents could request a drop off at the South Transit center and connect to TTD transit services to reach other Tahoe destinations (including the North Shore in the summer only) or with Amtrak to more distant destinations. In terms connectivity to same day return trips, the options are more limited. TTD operates daily commuter service from the Carson Valley to the Stateline Transit Center. The TTD Lake and Valley Route could be used in conjunction with Alpine County Transit DAR (under the existing schedule) to serve trips which require a full day in Lake Tahoe. At the same time DAR could transport passengers to other destinations in the Minden/Gardnerville area. As stated above, DAR service hours do not begin early enough for Alpine County residents to catch the TTD 20X Estimated Allocation Variable Total Line Item Fixed Hourly Per Mile Expense Operating Expenses Salaries & Wages $17,180 $17,180 Health Insurance $17,600 $17,600 PERS $3,430 $3,430 Medicare/SS/Workmans Comp $840 $840 Vehicle Fuels $4,000 $4,000 Spec Services and Supplies $1,500 $1,500 Insurance $558 $558 Vehicle Equip & Maint $4,000 $4,000 Admin Support Charges $8,000 $8,000 Professional Services $13,279 $13,279 Total Expenses $22,779 $39,608 $8,000 $70,387 Service Factors for FY 2015-16 Vehicle Service Hours Vehicle Service Miles 971 17,598 Vehicle Service Hour Cost Factor $40.81 Vehicle Service Mile Cost Factor $0.45 Annual Fixed Cost $22,779 Source: Alpine County Transit Services Fund Recommended FY 2015-16 Operating Budget TABLE 18: Alpine County Transit DAR Fiscal Year 2015-16 Expenses & Cost Allocation ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 45 TABLE 19: Alpine County Transit Service Alternatives FY 2015-16 Total Vehicle- Hours Total Vehicle- Miles Days per Year Total Vehicle- Hours Total Vehicle- Miles Annual Operating Cost Daily Annual Average Fare Annual Farebox Revenue Annual Operating Subsidy Total Service Cost Feasible? Annual Fixed Cost 22,780 $ Status Quo 6.8 123.9 142 970 17,600 47,580 $ 8.1 1,150 $5.93 6,820 $ 40,760 $ 63,540 $ Y Improved Connectivity to TTD 20X Bus Extend Hours to 6:00 AM Monday - Wednesday 2 36 142 280 5,150 13,770 $ 1.2 170 $3.65 620 $ 13,150 $ 76,690 $ N Extend Hours to 7:00 PM Monday - Wednesday 2 36 142 280 5,150 13,770 $ 0.5 70 $3.65 260 $ 13,510 $ 77,050 $ N Bear Valley - Connection with Calaveras Transit From Bear Valley - Arnold 2 RT, 1 Day/Week 6 120 52 310 6,240 15,490 $ 0.4 22.5 $5.00 110 $ 15,380 $ 78,920 $ N From Bear Valley - Arnold 1 RT, 1 Day/Week 3 60 52 160 3,120 7,950 $ 0.4 20.25 $5.00 100 $ 7,850 $ 71,390 $ Y Friday Service Add DAR Service on Friday (8AM - 5PM) 6.8 123.9 52 355 6,445 $17,430 7.9 410 $3.65 1,500 $ 15,930 $ 79,470 $ N Add One Round Trip Markleeville to Minden/Gardnerville, on Fridays 3.25 42 52 169 2,184 $7,890 3.2 160 $3.65 580 $ 7,310 $ 70,850 $ Y Add One Round Trip Markleeville to Lake Tahoe, on Fridays 4 62 52 208 3,224 $9,950 2.6 140 $4.00 560 $ 9,390 $ 72,930 $ Y Set Days for Carson and Tahoe M, W for Tahoe; Tues for Carson -2.2 142 -318 -$145 0.2 24 $4.50 110 $ Y Summer School Transportation for Hung-a-lel-ti Extend Hours to 7:00 AM Monday - Wednesday 3 38 27 80 1,026 $3,730 8 216 $4.00 860 $ 2,870 $ Add Two Round Trips Hung-a-lel-ti to Douglas High, 2 days per week 2.5 76 18 50 1,368 $2,660 8 144 $4.00 580 $ 2,080 $ Total 2.9 53.2 45 130 2,394 $6,390 8 360 $4.00 1,440 $ 4,950 $ 68,490 $ Y Kirkwood Service to Lake Tahoe - Non-winter Only 4.6 110 16 70 1,760 $3,660 4.0 64 $5.00 320 $ 3,340 $ 66,880 $ Y Hire Backup Driver Status Quo $1,500 1,500 $ Increased Local Service, One Day per Week 4.00 72.6 52 208.0 3,774 $6,340 2.0 104 $3.65 380 $ 5,960 $ 69,500 $ Y Transportation Reimbursement Program 199 5,000 $ Y Special Event (One Event) 5 30 1 5 30 $220 5 5 $2.00 10 $ 210 $ Y Daily Service Quantities Annual Service Quantities Ridership (One-way Passenger Trips) ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 46 bus. Therefore, an Alpine County resident would need to request DAR service to Lake Tahoe in the morning. For the return trip, the Alpine County resident would need to catch the 3:40 PM 20x bus from the Stateline Transit Center in Lake Tahoe to Minden/Gardnerville where the passenger could transfer to Alpine County Transit DAR at a pre-reserved location and time. It should be noted that if the Alpine County resident requires services on the California side of South Lake Tahoe, an additional trip on TTD local services would be required to reach the Stateline Transit Center. Although possible, the trip described above requires multiple transfers and reservations and the passenger would need to leave Stateline, NV by 3:40 PM. Extend Morning Service to 6:00 AM to meet TTD 20X Morning Commuter In an effort to improve connectivity to TTD services and Lake Tahoe, options to expand DAR service hours to better match those of the TTD Lake and Valley Routes were reviewed. The last morning weekday 20X bus departs Minden/Gardnerville (Tillman Center) at 7:10 AM. DAR service would need to be extended to begin at 6:00 AM to make this connection. The Alpine County passenger would arrive at the Stateline Transit Center by 8:00 AM. Under this alternative, the Alpine County resident would take the 3:40 PM departure from the Stateline Transit Center and meet DAR in Minden/Gardnerville. As shown in Table 19, the annual operating subsidy for this alternative would be on the order of $13,150. Based on Placer County Transit’s ridership by hour on the Rocklin/Loomis DAR, it is estimated that only an average of 1.2 additional one-way passenger trips would be carried during this additional two hours of service daily. This alternative would also require hiring an additional part time driver, as the DAR service day would be extended to 10 hours. Extend Evening Service to 7:00 PM to meet last TTD 20X Evening Commuter Another option to improve connectivity with the 20X bus would be extend DAR hours later in to the evening so that Alpine County passengers could take the last departure (5:35 PM) from the Stateline Transit Center. This would require extending DAR service hours until 7:00 PM and cost roughly $13,510 in annual operating subsidy. Again, ridership was estimated using Rocklin DAR ridership by hour data. Although both of the alternatives would increase connectivity to TTD services and allow for Alpine County residents more commute/college options on public transit to Lake Tahoe, neither alternative is financially feasible. Other alternatives to improve direct DAR service to Lake Tahoe are discussed below. Market Intercity Transit Connections with ESTA Eastern Sierra Transit Authority (ESTA) operates intercity feeder transit service along the US 395 corridor between Lancaster in Southern California and Reno, Nevada. The service includes an advance reservation stop at the Smiths in Gardnerville during the hours of Alpine County Transit DAR service. The connection to ESTA allows Alpine residents to travel to the Reno/Tahoe International Airport, Greyhound, Amtrak services travelling east, or even Los Angeles without a private vehicle. This connection may not be well known among Alpine County residents. The next time the Alpine County DAR brochure is updated, connections to ESTA services should be included. This information could also be posted on the Alpine County website. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 47 Connectivity with Calaveras Transit Calaveras Transit Route 4 connects the Calaveras County community of Arnold with Angels Camp and Columbia College in Tuolumne County. Arnold is roughly 30 miles from the Alpine County community of Bear Valley. Calaveras Transit Route 4 provides four daily round trips to Columbia College and five daily round trips to Angels Camp. In the past, a “ski bus” was operated between San Andreas and Bear Valley to bring skiers to the resort from Calaveras County. This was discontinued due to budget cuts. Calaveras Transit does not have any plans to extend service to Bear Valley at this time. Bear Valley is 42 miles from the Alpine County yard in Woodfords during the summer months and 129 miles from Woodfords when Ebbetts Pass is closed in the winter. This makes for a high proportion of “deadhead” miles or vehicle miles where there is not a fare paying passenger on board. Therefore, in order for Alpine County DAR to provide a connection to Arnold, a vehicle and driver would need to be based in Bear Valley. One option would be to advertise lifeline DAR service between Bear Valley and Arnold one day a week. With advance reservations, DAR could pick up Bear Valley residents at their homes in the morning around 8:00 AM and travel to the Big Trees Market in Arnold in time to catch the Route 4 bus bound for Angels Camp/Columbia College. The DAR could have a one hour layover in Arnold for shopping for Alpine County residents not wishing to connect to Calaveras Transit and return to Bear Valley by 11:00 AM. One round trip to Arnold would only allow for one-way connections to Calaveras Transit. To provide better connectivity to Calaveras Transit, DAR could operate two round trips with the afternoon round trip arriving at the Big Trees Market in Arnold around 3:30 PM to meet passengers arriving from Angels Camp/Columbia College. The one-way fare could be similar to a trip to Carson City, $5.00. According to the US Census, there are no zero vehicle households in the small community of Bear Valley and a population of only 65 people. Therefore, ridership would be quite low on this type of service. On the eastern side of the county (not including Kirkwood) DAR carries roughly 1.4 trips per capita. For Bear Valley, this would equate to a total of 88 one-way passenger-trips per year, with a similar level of service. If the Bear Valley service were only operated one day per week, an elasticity analysis shows that there may only be demand for 30 one-way passenger trips per year. This may be an optimistic estimate given that there are no zero vehicle households in Bear Valley and 12 zero vehicle households in the eastern portion of the county. Therefore, the annual Bear Valley ridership estimate was reduced by 20 percent. This equates to only 0.4 trips per day of service on average. With an annual subsidy of $15,380, this alternative is not financially feasible. Operating only one round trip to Arnold would reduce the subsidy by roughly half but would still have low ridership and provide limited connectivity to Calaveras Transit. If the Bear Valley Village project goes forward, there may be an increased need for employee and visitor transportation between Arnold and Bear Valley. Bear Valley alternatives could be reviewed again at that time. Connectivity with Amador Transit The ski resort community of Kirkwood is located in both Amador and Alpine Counties. There are essentially no facilities except for a general store. According to the US Census, only 66 people live there and three households have no vehicle available. Public comment from this SRTP ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 48 process indicated that there are a few ski resort employees living in the community with no transportation to good and services outside of Kirkwood. Amador Transit provides a variety of transit services include commuter service to Sacramento, rural lifeline service and DAR services for Amador County residents. Amador Transit’s Upcountry Route travels between the Sutter Hill Transit Center in Sutter Hill and Amador Station on SR 88. The Upcountry Route leaves Amador Station at 6:32 AM, 8:35 AM, 1:10 PM, and 5:20 PM. Amador Station is roughly 35 miles from Kirkwood but there are no goods or services located at Amador Station, only a connection to Amador Transit. The City of South Lake Tahoe is also around 35 miles from Kirkwood and has commercial, medical, educational, and employment opportunities. Transfers to intercity transportation services are also possible at the South Y Transit Center. Therefore the most effective and cost efficient way to meet mobility needs of Kirkwood residents is to provide service to South Lake Tahoe instead of connections to Amador Transit, as discussed below. Friday Service Service 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Per the Alpine County community survey conducted as part of this transit plan update, 9 out of 23 respondents stated that they would like DAR service on Fridays. If DAR operated regular service hours, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, this would cost roughly $17,430 annually. Ridership on the additional service day was estimated as follows. Average daily ridership (including special needs days) on the DAR in FY 2014-15 was 8.1 one-way trips per day. Based on ridership patterns on the Rocklin/Loomis DAR operated by Placer County Transit it was estimated that Friday ridership would be roughly 97 percent of average daily ridership on Alpine County DAR, or 7.9 one-way trips per Friday. The average fare for regular DAR service days is estimated at $3.65. If DAR service were operated on Friday, an additional $1,500 in farebox revenue would be collected, leaving a total annual operating subsidy of $15,930 to operate DAR on Fridays from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Adding in annual fixed costs of $22,779, the total operating budget would be $79,470 and exceed the $73,000 annual operating revenues. One Round Trip to Minden/Gardnerville Another option would be to only operate one round trip within the regular DAR service area on Fridays. Trips to both Minden/Gardnerville and Lake Tahoe were analyzed, as shown in Table 19. The cost of this alternative is much less and is estimated at $7,890. However, ridership would also be less if only one roundtrip were operated. A review of DAR reservation logs indicates that on average a round trip from Markleeville to Minden/Gardnerville carries around 3.2 one-way passenger trips. Over the course of a year, the alternative would carry 160 one- way passenger trips. Adding in annual fare revenue of $580 per year equates to an operating subsidy of $7,310. This option would be financially feasible. One Round Trip South Lake Tahoe Similarly, one round trip to South Lake Tahoe would carry 140 one-way passenger trips annually (based on DAR Reservation Logs) and as it is a greater distance would be more costly. It is estimated that this alternative would increase the Alpine County DAR operating costs to just under the $73,000 budget. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 49 Set Days of the Week for Tahoe and Carson City Service One of the goals of an SRTP update is to evaluate ways to make existing services more cost efficient and effective. A review of DAR reservation logs show that DAR sometimes travels to both Tahoe and Carson City in the same day and carries only one passenger for each trip. At other times, two trips to Tahoe have been made during one service day. The DAR driver does her best to group trips by geographic location but will not deny trips as long as requests are made within days and hours of DAR service. In an effort to increase efficiency and group longer distance trips together, Alpine County Transit DAR could set specific days for Lake Tahoe and Carson City. According to Table 18, a larger number of DAR trips begin and end in Carson vs. Tahoe, although community input shows that this trend may change:  Tribal TANF has indicated that the need for public transportation to Lake Tahoe is increasing. The Tribal Health Center in Dresslerville, Nevada is no longer accepting Medi-CAL insurance. Therefore, Alpine Medi-CAL recipients can no longer access services at the tribal health clinic. The closest California hospital, urgent care, and pharmacies which take Medi-CAL are located in the City of South Lake Tahoe.  In the past the California DMV has travelled to Alpine County to provide services. This will no longer occur. Now Alpine residents must travel to South Lake Tahoe to access the nearest DMV office.  There are also multiple incentives for Hung-a-lel-ti residents to attend community college in South Lake Tahoe (Lake Tahoe Community College) instead of in Carson City (Western Nevada College) such as financial aid and better scheduling options. One Lake Tahoe Community College student uses DAR to commute to (not from) Tahoe on Monday and Wednesdays. Taking into account this input, it would be reasonable to establish Mondays and Wednesdays as “Tahoe” days and Tuesdays as the “Carson” day. Trips to Minden/Gardnerville would be operated on any service day as they fit in to the schedule. It is difficult to quantify exact cost savings from establishing a set schedule but a review of DAR logs indicate that a trip to Tahoe and/or Carson might be made in the same day on average once a month. Eliminating one of these trips once per month would save on average 320 miles per year. In turn passenger-trips per hour would increase if multiple trips were combined. It is estimated that establishing set days for longer distance trips may result in a conservative subsidy reduction estimate of $250 per year. Summer School Transportation for Washoe Tribal Members As reviewed in the existing conditions section, there is no high school in Alpine County. During the regular school year transportation is provided for Alpine County students by the school districts to Douglas High School. Students who are credit deficient attend summer school in an effort to get back on track but the district does not provide transportation to summer school. In recent years, there have been four students living at the Hung-a-lel-ti Community who have had a need to attend summer school and Douglas High School and required transportation. Summer school typically begins around 8:00 AM and ends around Noon for a nine week period from June 13th to August 12th. ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 50 Conversations with Washoe Tribe Education Administration staff indicate that there are Washoe TANF vehicles available for transportation but no staff available to drive the vehicles on a consistent basis to summer school. Douglas High School is well within the service area of Alpine County DAR, but the times and days the students require transportation does not completely fit within DAR’s service span. In order to transport the students to summer school, DAR would first need to begin service at 7:00 AM Monday through Wednesday. This would allow time for the students to be picked up at the Hung-a-lel-ti community and arrive at Douglas High School by 8:00 AM. The return trip around Noon is within the hours of existing DAR service. It is estimated that the annual operating cost of this service extension for a nine week period would be $3,730. As school is in session Monday through Friday, DAR would also need to provide two round trips to Minden/Gardnerville on Thursdays and Fridays for the nine week school period. It is estimated that this would cost on the order of $2,660 for a total cost of $6,390 to provide summer school transportation for the students. The ridership estimates of 360 additional one-way passenger- trips shown in Table 19 for this alternative only account for student trips. However, it is quite possible that other community members may require transportation at the same time and would therefore increase the ridership estimates. It is also possible that fewer than four students would be needing transportation, depending on each student’s circumstance that year. According to Washoe Tribe staff, there may be tribal funds available to subsidize the cost of transportation to summer school for tribally enrolled members. Ideally, the County and the tribe would coordinate to establish a fixed up-front price for the transportation costs of summer school and this figure could be factored into tribal fund grant requests. This alternative is financially feasible, particularly if Tribal Funds could be used to pay for all or part of the operating cost. Important Considerations There are a few issues to consider with the summer school transportation alternative. First, summer school transportation would need to be coordinated with special needs transportation on Thursdays. It would be possible to drop off the students at Douglas High School around 8:00 AM and transport other passengers to the Coleville medical clinic in time for 9:00 AM appointments. In order to pick up the students by Noon, DAR would need to depart Coleville by 11:30. This would allow time for two to three DAR passengers to have medical appointments. A full day of appointments would not be feasible. Recipients of Federal Transit Administration grants (such as Alpine County) must comply with certain rules and regulations. There are particular rules for FTA grantees regarding the provision of “school transportation”. With respect to this alternative, it is important that DAR service expansions in conjunction with summer school transportation be open to the general public. FTA grantees may provide “tripper services” as defined below: “Tripper service means regularly scheduled mass transportation service which is open to the public, and which is designed or modified to accommodate the needs of school students and personnel, using various fare collections or subsidy systems. Buses used in tripper service must be clearly marked as open to the public and may not carry designations such as ‘‘school bus’’ or ‘‘school special’’. These buses may stop only at a grantee or operator’s regular service stop. All routes traveled by tripper buses must be within a grantee’s or operator’s regular route service as indicated in their published route schedules.” ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 51 Another point to consider is the fact that the extended service would only be available for a nine week period. This could be confusing for potential non-student riders. Although perhaps not readily quantifiable, Alpine County DAR providing summer school transportation would have an indirect long-term positive impact for youth in the Hung-a-lel-ti community. With a relatively high unemployment and high school dropout rate for youth, greater access to education at a young age could potentially decrease the need for public assistance in the future. Kirkwood – Twice per Month Service to South Lake Tahoe During the busy season (December to March), Kirkwood Ski Resort operates a daily shuttle for employees living in South Lake Tahoe and working in Kirkwood. The bus picks up passengers at Ski Run Boulevard, the Y, and Meyers and arrives at Kirkwood by 7:00 AM. The return trip departs the ski area at 5:00 PM. Two days per week, the same shuttle is used to provide trips to South Lake Tahoe from Kirkwood for employees living in employee housing in Kirkwood without a vehicle. This bus departs Kirkwood around 8:00 AM and arrives in South Lake Tahoe around 9:00 AM. The return trip departs South Lake Tahoe at 3:30 PM. Kirkwood ski resort also provides incentives for employees to carpool to work from South Lake Tahoe. In exchange for providing rides for other employees, the driver receives a gift card which can be used for many types of services at Kirkwood Ski Resort including gas, food, and beverage. This program is only available from November 15 until the ski resort closes for the summer. Public comment indicated a need to provide lifeline services for residents of Kirkwood without a vehicle during the non-winter months. This may include ski resort employees who need access to mostly shopping opportunities but perhaps also transportation to medical appointments and connections with intercity transit services. The only food store available for Kirkwood residents is a small general store. There have also been a few requests for public transit services offered Kirkwood residents. There are roughly 100 year round employees at Kirkwood and staff estimate that only a handful, around five employees, do not have a personal vehicle. The City of South Lake Tahoe has significantly more shopping, medical, and transportation services available than Woodfords. In order to connect Kirkwood residents to needed services, Alpine County Transit DAR could advertise service between Kirkwood and South Lake Tahoe with advance reservation. This alternative could only operate if a minimum of two passengers requested transportation. The service could be advertised as available every other Friday (available day for DAR) for a one-way fare of $5.00. The alternative could also serve as an additional trip to Lake Tahoe for Woodfords area residents, if they were willing to make the 45 minute detour to Kirkwood each way. If this Kirkwood alternative operated twice a month for 8 months (April – November) when the ski resort is not providing transportation, it would cost on the order of $3,660 annually. Assuming a minimum of two people or four one-way passenger trips each day of service, the annual subsidy would be $3,340. This alternative would be financially feasible. The back up DAR driver may be required under this alternative. ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 52 CTAA Vanpool Options The Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA) has partnered with Enterprise Rideshare to offer a vanpool/rideshare type program to small rural transit agencies. Vanpools are a common method of addressing and/or supplementing commuting needs. Often the transit agency will lease a van and organize eight or so potential commuters whose shift times and locations coincide. The cost of the vehicle lease, fuel and maintenance is divided among the participants and often paid on a basis. The vehicle is stored at the designated driver’s home. The relatively new CTAA program was developed to meet the more specific needs of rural areas. The type of vehicle available for lease is flexible from a small wheelchair accessible minivan to a larger 9 passenger van. Vehicle leases terms are also flexible and available for as short as 30 day periods. This provides the vanpool/rideshare program with the option of switching to a different size vehicle as program needs change or the option to terminate the program if interest wanes. Turnkey options which would include maintenance and fuel are also possible. The vehicle can be branded as the public transit program or as Enterprise Rideshare. Another benefit of the program is that vehicles would be available for use much more quickly than if the transit operator procured a vehicle through federal grants. Alpine County’s role in this alternative would be to coordinate with CTAA, Enterprise Rideshare and the vanpool users to set up the program. Alpine County would need to become a member of CTAA. The cost of the program depends on the size of vehicle and the number of participants. Generally, the total cost of the vanpool including fuel, insurance and maintenance would be roughly $900 for a five person vanpool for a per person cost of $180. This figure decreases as more people join the van pool. Hung-a-lel-ti In the past, transportation to work has been brought up as a transportation need for the Hung-a- lel-ti community. The small vanpool option could be a good fit for the community if enough employees were interested. The challenge may be finding a large enough group of employees with similar shift and work location times who are willing to pay the fee. A Hung-a-lel-ti vanpool could help community members working in Minden/Gardnerville as well as those attending regular classes at Lake Tahoe Community College. Bear Valley Transportation needs cited in Bear Valley include transportation between a summer camp program in Bear Valley and Calaveras County communities of Arnold, Camp Connell etc. Ideally, children would need to arrive in Bear Valley around 9:00 AM and return at around 3:00 PM. The program runs for an 8 week period for children ages 3 to 16. In this situation a vehicle could be leased for a two month period and the cost of the lease, fuel and maintenance could be folded into a “transportation option” for the child attending the program. One of the program organizers could be the designated driver and store the vehicle at his/her home. Unfortunately, this may be an expensive option, particularly if only a small number of children require transportation. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 53 Hire Back-up DAR Driver Currently Alpine County Transit has only one driver who works part-time (32 hours per week). On occasion an employee of HHS has been able to assist with driving in the event the regular driver is ill. This may not be able to continue going forward as the HHS employee may be needed full time for other services. In this case, Alpine County should hire a back-up driver. This is important to insure that public transit can be continuously operated as per the schedule. Ideally, the County should hire someone with prior transportation experience such as a retired school bus driver, or a driver for Tribal TANF or Alpine County HHS. The candidate should have the following qualifications:  Pass a drug and alcohol test prior to employment (mandatory)  Be subject to random drug testing similar to other County employees (mandatory)  No record of any prior traffic violations (mandatory)  Previous experience driving public transit (preferred)  Previous experience working with senior and disabled persons (preferred)  Training on how to use wheelchair lift and how to tie down a wheelchair or scooter chair (preferred)  Experience or is familiar with the type of transit vehicles owned and operated by the County (preferred) If no candidates with the preferred level of experience are available, Alpine County could consider working with another nearby public transit operator to provide training, such as Amador Transit or TTD. At a minimum Alpine County should budget around 100 hours per year for a backup driver under the status quo alternative. Assuming an hourly wage rate of around $15 per hour with no health or retirement benefits, this would cost around $1,500 per year. This time would likely occur in blocks; therefore this position would not provide consistent part-time employment for someone, making hiring a backup driver more challenging. Increased Local Service Back-up driver services could also be used to supplement current DAR service when the mini bus is travelling out of Alpine County. HHS staff have indicated there are times when clients need same day transportation locally within Alpine County and the DAR bus is “out of town” for another trip request. One example is the need for transportation home from HHS after receiving commodities. If there is a same day request for local DAR service when the bus is in South Lake Tahoe or even Gardnerville, the backup driver could provide the trip using the minivan. This would require the backup driver being on call for a specified period of time. A financially feasible option would be to have the back-up driver on-call for local DAR service one day a week. The back-up driver would be available for four hours to make same day or advance notice trip requests between Woodfords, Markleeville, the Hung-a-lel-ti Community and ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 54 Minden/Gardnerville. It is reasonable to assume that only one roundtrip or two one-way passenger trips will be made during that time. This leaves an annual operating subsidy of $4,460. Combined with the $1,500 cost of having a back-up driver on staff under the status quo option, this alternative would be financially feasible under the current budget projections. Transportation Reimbursement/Volunteer Driver Program More and more public transit systems are turning to non-conventional forms of public transit to meet needs for the most rural residents. These include volunteer driver programs, transportation reimbursement programs and rideshare programs. Nearby Western Placer County has developed the My Rides Transportation Reimbursement/ Volunteer Driver Program. The My Rides Program is a mileage-reimbursement program for Placer County residents unable to use conventional public transit. The program is designed to be a ride of last resort. Volunteer drivers (recruited by either the administering agency or the passenger) are reimbursed to transport eligible participants to and from medical appointments, public services and essential needs destinations. The My Rides Program also provides a voucher for individuals who cannot otherwise afford the costs associated with an occasional and necessary trip to medical related appointments. Eligible participants include: Seniors, individuals with disabilities, or families with young children (0-5) who are unable to drive or do not have the means to drive and can be vulnerable to circumstances that prevent them from getting to medical services and other places that support their quality of life. The non-profit foundation, Seniors First, administers the countywide program. The program receives roughly $110,000 in TDA funding through the Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA) allocation, $15,000 through First Five, $39,000 from Area 4 Agency on Aging and the non-profit foundation, Seniors First, provides another $53,000 through donations and other grants for a total budget of $217,000. To date, My Rides requests have not exceeded the allotted budget. In calendar year 2014, the program generated around 6,000 one-way passenger trips, travelled 113,150 miles, 7,770 hours with a total of 86 registered volunteers. Over the months of January and February of 2015, the My Rides program cost $10,920 in reimbursements and administration costs (administrative costs are roughly 33 percent of total cost) and provided around 980 one-way trips. This equates to an operating cost of roughly $11.00 per trip, significantly less than the cost of one Alpine County Transit DAR trip ($60 per trip). In Alpine County a similar program could be implemented to fill the needs of Alpine County residents which are not financially feasible through an extension of the existing DAR system. There are three communities where a transportation reimbursement/volunteer driver program could be particularly useful: Hung-a-lel-ti, Kirkwood, and Bear Valley. According to the estimated FY 2015-16 transit operations and budget, there is roughly $10,000 in available revenue. To be conservative, Alpine County could allocate $5,000 of the transit operations revenue for a transportation reimbursement program. Following the Placer County example, roughly $1,650 of the $5,000 or 33 percent would be required for administering the program. Assuming an hourly wage of around $15 per hour, this equates to roughly 2 hours per week of administrative staff time. The additional administrative time could be filled by the existing transit driver or back up driver. If additional funding is secured through other non-transit related grants, and the program is expanded, perhaps there would be a need to hire a part time administrative position. This could be a potential job opportunity for a member of the Hung-a-lel- ti community. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 55 Given the limited funding available, eligible trips for reimbursement should be limited to important needs and could vary depending on whether or not DAR service is available to the area. For the Hung-a-lel-ti community, eligible trips could be limited to important trips such as medical appointments, social service appointments, trainings or school related trips which must be made outside the days and hour of DAR availability. There would not be sufficient funding available to reimburse drivers for commuting purposes, five days a week but the program could supplement regular DAR needs which occur on Fridays or outside regular service hours. For Kirkwood and Bear Valley, eligible trips could also include shopping as there is currently no public transit service in these areas. Similar to the MyRides program, transportation reimbursements should be provided as a ride of last resort and the passenger should fit into a pre-defined low income/disadvantaged criteria. The number of trips provided through a transportation reimbursement program will vary depending on Alpine County resident’s situation. DAR operating statistics show that in 2015 there was an average of 14.6 vehicle miles per one-way passenger trip. Assuming a similar one-way trip mileage for the reimbursement program, multiplied by the IRS reimbursement rate of $0.23 per mile equates to a per trip cost of $3.36. Subtracting out administrative costs there will be a budget of roughly $3,350 available for reimbursements or around 1,000 one-way trips. Coordination with First Five In the past, Alpine County Transit provided transportation for children ages 0 – 5 to the First Five programs. First 5 Alpine works in partnership with individuals and organizations throughout the county, to support the health, early learning and well-being of children pre-natal to age 5 and their families. The First Five program paid for a portion of the transportation costs in order to secure transportation for clients. This service was discontinued in 2008. Now the First Five preschool program is located at the Diamond Valley School and transportation is provided by the District. The First Five Executive Director was contacted as part of this SRTP update to evaluate current transportation needs of families with children age 0 – 5. Although transportation to preschool programs are provided, there are often playgroups to which no transportation is provided. The Executive Director indicated that there may be families in need with children age 0 – 5 who are not aware of DAR services or find the trip too expensive and therefore will not attend activities or appointments important for early childhood development. First Five may have some funding available to pay for transportation costs for eligible families. Alpine County should coordinate with First Five to establish a voucher program for First Five clients. Special Event Transportation Transportation to special events was identified as a need during the public and stakeholder input process. Examples include the annual health fair at Turtle Rock Park, Senior Soak at Grover Hot Springs and other Hung-a-lel-ti community events. With no taxi service or other transportation providers in the county, Alpine County DAR is a logical choice to provide these services. As a grantee of FTA funds, Alpine County must not violate charter service rules. Charter service as defined by the FTA does not include demand response service to individuals. To ensure that special event transportation is not classified as charter service, typical DAR service should be available but trips could be grouped according to geographic location. ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 56 Special event transportation could operate as a special needs trip where the passenger or the human service organization must pay for the full cost of the trip. Alternatively, DAR could charge passengers the normal fare. It is difficult to forecast the amount of time required for special event transportation but a possible trip scenario would be from Hung-a-lel-ti to Grover Hot Springs. This is a round trip distance of 30 miles and potentially 5 hours including driver preparation time. This would be $220 in operating costs. If five passenger-trips were provided, the operating subsidy would be $210. There is ample room in the transit operations budget to provide a several special event transportation trips, provided that staff is available. Special event transportation could only occur on Thursdays or Fridays, unless the backup driver and the backup vehicle were used. Alternatives Performance Analysis Using the information presented above, a performance analysis was conducted that allows a convenient comparison of the various service alternatives. This performance analysis, based on a series of five standard transit performance measures, as shown in Table 20. The performance indicators do not include fixed costs. A review of this table indicates the following:  Marginal Passenger-Trips per Vehicle-Hour of Service for the various alternatives ranges from a low of 0.1 for service between Bear Valley and Arnold to a high of 2.8 trips per hour for summer school transportation. These values are also shown in Figure 16.  Another measure of productivity is Marginal Passenger-Trips per Vehicle-Mile of Service. This ranges from a high of 0.17 for special event transportation to a low of less than 0.01 for Bear Valley to Arnold service two round trips per day.  A key measure of cost efficiency is the Marginal Cost per Passenger-Trip. A lower value reflects a “better” or more efficient alternative. Summer school transportation is the most cost effective with a marginal operating cost per trip of $17.75. Again the Bear Valley to Arnold alternatives are quite expensive ($392 to $688) as well as evening connectivity to TTD ($196).  Perhaps the best overall measure of efficiency is the Marginal Subsidy per Passenger- Trip. This directly relates the key public input (funding) with the key output of a transit service (passenger-trips). As indicated in Figure 17, the best alternative by this measure is Summer School Transportation ($13.75). This is not including the possibility that the Washoe Tribe may be able to pay for more of the cost of service than the passenger fare. On the other extreme, two round trips per day, one day per week between Bear Valley and Arnold would require a subsidy of $683.56.  Finally, the Marginal Farebox Return Ratio is calculated as the ratio of farebox revenues to the marginal operating costs of the alternative. The “best” alternative by this measure is again Summer School Transportation, whereby 22.5 percent of costs are recovered through the farebox. On the other hand, the Bear Valley alternatives would only generate revenues covering 0.7 to 1.3 percent of the marginal costs. Overall, this performance analysis indicates that Summer School Transportation has the better performance measures. Although it is not financially feasible, DAR service from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Fridays is the next best performing alternative. In terms of new transportation services for currently unserved portions of the county, the Kirkwood service alternative ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 57 performs much better than the Bear Valley alternatives and is financially feasible. Special Event transportation and the Transportation Reimbursement program can be implemented at a specified budget that does not exceed available revenues and they both fulfill important transportation needs for the community. Table 20 shows that the quantitative benefits of setting specific days of the week for trips to Carson and Tahoe are minimal but it is a good strategy in terms of performance efficiency. Lastly, hiring a backup driver is important to maintain continued public transit service. The backup driver could also be used to implement some of the financially feasible alternatives such as Kirkwood to Lake Tahoe service. TABLE 20: Service Alternative Performance Analysis Alternative Marginal Passenger- Trips per Vehicle- Hour Marginal Passenger- Trips per Vehicle-Mile Marginal Cost per Passenger- Trip Marginal Subsidy per Passenger- Trip Marginal Farebox Return Ratio Existing Service 1.4 0.1 $41.37 $35.44 14% Improved Connectivity to TTD 20X Bus Extend Hours to 6:00 AM Monday - Wednesday 0.6 0.03 $81.00 $77.35 4.5% Extend Hours to 7:00 PM Monday - Wednesday 0.3 0.01 $196.71 $193.00 1.9% Bear Valley - Connection with Calaveras Transit From Bear Valley - Arnold 2 RT, 1 Day/Week 0.1 0.00 $688.44 $683.56 0.7% From Bear Valley - Arnold 1 RT, 1 Day/Week 0.1 0.01 $392.59 $387.65 1.3% Friday Service Add DAR Service on Friday (8AM - 5PM) 1.2 0.06 $42.51 $38.85 8.6% Add One Round Trip Markleeville to Minden/Gardnerville, on Fridays 0.9 0.07 $49.31 $45.69 7.4% Add One Round Trip Markleeville to Lake Tahoe, on Fridays 0.7 0.04 $71.07 $67.07 5.6% Summer School Transportation for Hung-a-lel-ti Extend Hours to 7:00 AM Monday - Wednesday 2.7 0.21 $17.27 $13.29 23.1% Add Two Round Trips Hung-a-lel-ti to Douglas High, 2 days per week 2.9 0.11 $18.47 $14.44 21.8% Total 2.8 0.15 $17.75 $13.75 22.5% Kirkwood service to Lake Tahoe (non-winter) 0.9 0.04 $57.19 $52.19 8.7% Hire Backup Driver Status Quo 1.4 0.1 $1.30 $1.30 14% Increased Local Service, One Day per Week 0.5 0.03 $60.96 $57.31 6.0% Performance Measure ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 58 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Connectivty to TTD: Extend Hours to 6:00 AM Monday ‐ Wednesday Connectivity to TTD: Extend Hours to 7:00 PM Monday ‐ Wednesday Bear Valley ‐ Arnold 2 RT, 1 Day/Week Bear Valley ‐ Arnold 1 RT, 1 Day/Week Add DAR Service on Friday (8AM ‐ 5PM) Add One Round Trip Markleeville to Minden/Gardnerville, on Fridays Add One Round Trip Markleeville to Lake Tahoe, on Fridays Summer School Transportation Kirkwood ‐ service to Lake Tahoe Back up Driver: Increased Service Figure 16: Service Alternatives One‐way Passenger Trips per Hour ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 59 $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 Connectivty to TTD: Extend Hours to 6:00 AM Monday ‐ Wednesday Connectivity to TTD: Extend Hours to 7:00 PM Monday ‐ Wednesday Bear Valley ‐ Arnold 2 RT, 1 Day/Week Bear Valley ‐ Arnold 1 RT, 1 Day/Week Add DAR Service on Friday (8AM ‐ 5PM) Add One Round Trip Markleeville to Minden/Gardnerville, on Fridays Add One Round Trip Markleeville to Lake Tahoe, on Fridays Summer School Transportation Kirkwood ‐ service to Lake Tahoe Back up Driver: Increased Service Figure 17: Service Alternatives Marginal Operating Subsidy per Trip ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 60 This page left intentionally blank. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 61 Chapter 5 Recommended Transit Plan This Transit Development Plan is intended to guide the improvements of public transit services in Alpine County for Fiscal Years 2016-2017 through 2020-2021. Much of the analysis used as a basis for the plan is presented in previous chapters; the reader is encouraged to refer to previous chapters for additional information and discussion regarding potential alternatives analyzed as part of this process. Overall, work conducted as part of this transit plan update demonstrates that Alpine County is providing good public transit service considering the small population and limited funding available. The following presents a fiscally constrained Capital, Service Alpine County DAR which will provide guidance for Alpine County and the ACLTC and will meet the mobility needs of residents. CAPITAL PLAN A transit system’s infrastructure is important to the safety, efficiency, and overall appearance of the transit service. Alpine County Transit’s needs over the next five years are identified in Table 21. Table 21: Alpine County Transit Capital Plan Proposed Project Description Total Cost (1,000's) Funding Source Construct Year Install security cameras in minivan $5,000 PTMISEA, FTA TBD Bus replacement (9-passenger) $150,000 LTF, STA, FTA TBD Passenger Amenities - Shelter and bench at Hung-a-lel-ti $10,000 FTA, PTMISEA TBD Minivan replacement County Surplus Vehicle TBD Total Estimated Cost $165,000 Source: Alpine County ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 62 The most important long-term need for which Alpine County should plan is replacement of the transit vehicle. Transit vehicle replacement is particular important for Alpine County as the vehicle fleet consists of only two vehicles. Currently there is only one back up vehicle and both vehicles are aging and will need to be replaced within the next seven years. The minimum service life of a small 10 passenger bus or van according to FTA guidelines is roughly 4 years or 100,000 miles. Replacing the Alpine County Transit bus will be a large expense for a transit system with such a small operating budget. A new vehicle could cost on the order of $ 100,000 to $150,000. Other long-term potential capital expenditures include installing passenger amenities at common DAR stop locations. For example, a reasonable amount of ridership is generated at the Community Center in Hung-A-Lel-ti. Passengers would benefit by a shelter and/or bench while waiting for the DAR at this location. The Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California would need to enter into an agreement with Alpine County to allow a bus shelter at this location. The capital projects listed in Table 21 can be paid for using LTF, STA, FTA funds or a combination of all. The recurring FTA 5311 fund allocation to Alpine County is needed for operating expenses. The FTA 5310 Program Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program provides a competitive funding source for capital and operating projects which increase mobility for seniors and individuals with disabilities. Projects funded with FTA 5310 funds must be developed through a Coordinated Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan. In the past, agencies have been able to use “Toll Credits” as a local match for federal funding. In other words, states are allotted a certain number of credits which can be used as match to federal funds. The amount of credit is based on revenues generated by toll authorities within the State. Recent experience has shown that, as a small agency, Alpine County Transit may have difficulty procuring competitive FTA funds for a replacement vehicle and therefore should plan to fund the vehicle with local funds. Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOPS) The Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOPS) is one of several programs that are part of the Transit, Affordable Housing, and Sustainable Communities Program established by the California Legislature in 2014 by Senate Bill 862 (SB 862) which continuously appropriates five percent of the annual auction proceeds in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) for LCTOP beginning in 2015-16. The purpose of the program is to provide operating and capital assistance for transit agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve mobility, with a priority on serving disadvantaged communities. Eligible projects must support new or expanded bus, ferry or rail services, expand intermodal transit facilities, and may include equipment acquisition, fueling, maintenance and other costs to operate those services or facilities, with each project required to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This is a recurring funding source and allocations are based on population and revenues. In FY 2015-16 Alpine County is eligible to receive only $1,162 in LCTOPS funds. One type of eligible project listed in the FY 2015-16 LCTOPS guidelines which may apply to Alpine County is free or reduced fare transit vouchers. Counties must apply for LCTOPS funds as well as quantify GHG emission reductions resulting from the project. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 63 FINANCIAL PLAN Table 22 presents a fiscally constrained operating and capital plan for Alpine County DAR between FY 2016-17 to FY 2020-21. The financial plan is based on the following conditions:  Alpine County DAR’s operating costs for existing operations are roughly $70,000.  Operating costs are expected to increase by 1.8 percent annually with inflation. This is based on the growth of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) between 2010 and 2015.  Operating revenues (TDA-LTF, FTA 5311 and passenger fares) equate to roughly $80,000 per year. TDA and FTA revenues are expected to increase at the 1.8 percent annual inflation rate. Passenger fares are projected to remain flat as no fare increase is proposed at this time.  Alpine County will need to replace the DAR bus in 2022. In an effort to be fiscally conservative and to ensure that there will always be a working transit vehicle available for operations, Alpine County should not count on competitive FTA funds for bus replacement. Instead, ACLTC should accumulate sufficient local funds to pay for the purchase of a new vehicle by 2022. Given this financial constraint, it is anticipated that there will be no excess operating revenues to implement any of the alternatives discussed in the previous chapter. As shown in Table 22. TDA – STA funds should be reserved for the replacement vehicle along with any TDA – LTF funds not needed to finance status quo operations. According to this financial plan, there will be roughly $122,000 in the capital reserves fund available for vehicle replacement by the end of the five year planning period. SERVICE PLAN Status Quo Operations As dictated by the Financial Plan, Alpine County Transit should maintain status quo operations. This plan will ensure that the existing level of transit service can continue for the long term despite any unforeseen financial shortfalls or mechanical issues with the DAR vehicles. Over the planning period, LTF funds not needed to cover operating expenses for DAR should be retained by ACLTC in the transportation fund as an unallocated apportionment. These funds can them be later allocated to Alpine County Transit to purchase a new DAR bus per PUC 6655.1. Hire a Back-Up Driver During the time that this Transit Plan was being developed, Alpine County DAR hired a back- up driver (one of the potential transit alternatives). The back-up driver will be available to work when the regular driver is ill or on vacation. It is not anticipated that the back-up driver will be used to expand service at this time, therefore there will be minimal financial impacts. Summer School Transportation for Hung-a-lel-ti Discussions with Alpine County and the Washoe Tribe indicate that there is potential for coordination with respect to the Summer School Transportation alternative for Hung-a-lel-ti ---PAGE BREAK--- LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan Page 64 TABLE 22: Alpine County TDP - Financial Plan Plan Element Projected FY16-17 Projected FY17-18 Projected FY18-19 Projected FY19-20 Projected FY 20-21 5-Year Plan Total OPERATING PLAN Base Case Costs $71,660 $72,950 $74,260 $75,600 $76,960 $371,430 Operating Plan Elements $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total Operating Costs $71,660 $72,950 $74,260 $75,600 $76,960 $371,430 Operating Revenues Passenger Fares $6,830 $6,830 $6,830 $6,830 $6,830 $34,150 TDA - LTF for transit operations $33,590 $34,190 $34,810 $35,440 $36,080 $174,110 FTA Section 5311 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $200,000 Total Operating Revenues $80,400 $81,000 $81,600 $82,300 $82,900 $408,200 Balance Available for Transfer to/from Capital Fund or Reserves $8,740 $8,050 $7,340 $6,700 $5,940 $36,770 CAPITAL PLAN Capital Costs $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 Capital Revenues TDA - STA $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $15,000 Total Capital Revenues $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $15,000 Annual Balance: Transfer to/from Capital Fund -$2,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $10,000 OPERATING/CAPITAL RESERVE Beginning Balance $75,241 $81,981 $93,031 $103,371 $113,071 $466,695 Transfer from Operating Revenues $8,740 $8,050 $7,340 $6,700 $5,940 $36,770 Transfer from Capital Revenues -$2,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $10,000 Transfer to Capital Plan $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 End Balance $81,981 $93,031 $103,371 $113,071 $122,011 $513,465 Note: Operating costs and LTF revenues are projected to increase at 1.8 percent annually to reflect inflation. This figure is based on the grow th of the CPI from 2010 - 2015. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alpine County 2015 Short Range Transit Plan LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. Page 65 residents. The Hung-a-lel-ti community has a van available to transport residents for qualified purposes, such as education. The problem has been that there has not been a qualified driver available on a regular basis. One possibility would be for Hung-a-lel-ti to hire the Alpine County DAR back-up driver to drive their van for summer school transportation. This scenario is a simple and cost free solution for the County to help meet mobility needs for tribal members. Maintain Operating Reserve In addition to accumulating LTF funds to pay for transit vehicle replacement, Alpine County should maintain a small reserve of LTF funds for operating purposes, in case of an unforeseen drop in sales tax revenues or increase in operating costs. The Financial Plan in Table 22 builds a comfortable operating/capital reserve which will provide a cushion in case of a financial crisis. Implement Service Alternatives as Funding Allows and Demand Warrants In terms of performance, the Friday Service alternative: Add DAR Service on Friday 8AM to 5 PM is the most productive and cost efficient. However, even if LTF funds were not set aside for capital reserve, this alternative is not financially feasible. Beyond the Summer School Transportation Alternative (which is addressed above), the next best performing alternatives are: Friday Service: Add One Round Trip to Minden/Gardnerville and Service to Kirkwood during the non-winter months. Ridership estimates for these alternatives are still quite low. If the Capital/Operating Reserve fund were to surpass the $150,000 mark during the five year planning period, the excess funds could be used to implement one of the better performing alternatives. If one of the alternatives are considered for implementation during the planning period, it should be implemented as a pilot service initially with a set trial period. If ridership does not warrant service, the pilot service should be discontinued. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A Origin – Destination Tables ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE A-1: Alpine County DAR - Origin - Destination Patterns January 2015 Carson Coleville Dresslerville Gardnerville Lake Tahoe Markleeville Minden Paynesville Pleasant Valley Sierra Pines Woodfords Hung-A- Lel-Ti Placerville Truckee Total Carson 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 Coleville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 1 5 0 0 11 Dresslerville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 Gardnerville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 2 0 0 10 Lake Tahoe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 Markleeville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minden 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 Paynesville 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Pleasant Valley 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 Sierra Pines 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Woodfords 0 1 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 11 Hung-A-Lel-Ti 1 5 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Placerville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Truckee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 3 11 3 11 4 0 2 2 6 5 9 12 0 0 68 Source: Alpine County Destinations Origins ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE A-2: Alpine County DAR - Origin - Destination Patterns February 2015 Carson Coleville Dresslerville Gardnerville Lake Tahoe Markleeville Minden Paynesville Pleasant Valley Sierra Pines Woodfords Hung-A- Lel-Ti Placerville Truckee Total Carson 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 6 Coleville 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 7 Dresslerville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gardnerville 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 3 8 0 0 16 Lake Tahoe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 Markleeville 0 1 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 8 Minden 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Paynesville 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 6 Pleasant Valley 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 Sierra Pines 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Woodfords 2 2 0 7 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 16 Hung-A-Lel-Ti 2 0 0 7 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 15 Placerville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 Truckee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 6 7 0 19 3 8 1 6 2 2 12 17 2 0 85 Source: Alpine County Destinations Origins ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE A-3: Alpine County DAR - Origin - Destination Patterns March 2015 Carson Coleville Dresslerville Gardnerville Lake Tahoe Markleeville Minden Paynesville Pleasant Valley Sierra Pines Woodfords Hung-A- Lel-Ti Placerville Truckee Total Carson 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 4 3 0 0 12 Coleville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 5 Dresslerville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gardnerville 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 7 0 0 13 Lake Tahoe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Markleeville 4 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 27 Minden 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Paynesville 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Pleasant Valley 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Sierra Pines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Woodfords 4 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Hung-A-Lel-Ti 3 1 0 7 1 18 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 31 Placerville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Truckee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 12 5 1 14 1 25 0 1 2 1 7 32 0 0 101 Source: Alpine County Destinations Origins ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE A-4: Alpine County DAR - Origin - Destination Patterns April 2015 Carson Coleville Dresslerville Gardnerville Lake Tahoe Markleeville Minden Paynesville Pleasant Valley Sierra Pines Woodfords Hung-A- Lel-Ti Placerville Truckee Total Carson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 12 0 0 13 Coleville 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 12 Dresslerville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 Gardnerville 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 7 0 0 15 Lake Tahoe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Markleeville 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 20 Minden 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Paynesville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Pleasant Valley 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Sierra Pines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Woodfords 1 5 1 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 16 Hung-A-Lel-Ti 12 4 2 7 0 13 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 40 Placerville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Truckee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Total 14 12 3 18 2 20 0 0 1 0 12 40 0 1 123 Source: Alpine County Destinations Origins ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE A-5: Alpine County DAR - Origin - Destination Patterns May 2015 Carson Coleville Dresslerville Gardnerville Lake Tahoe Markleeville Minden Paynesville Pleasant Valley Sierra Pines Woodfords Hung-A- Lel-Ti Placerville Truckee Total Carson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 4 Coleville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Dresslerville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gardnerville 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 9 4 0 0 20 Lake Tahoe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 6 Markleeville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 9 Minden 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Paynesville 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Pleasant Valley 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Sierra Pines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Woodfords 2 0 0 7 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 Hung-A-Lel-Ti 2 0 0 4 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Placerville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Truckee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 4 1 0 12 6 14 2 2 2 0 12 19 0 0 74 Source: Alpine County Destinations Origins ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE A-6: Alpine County DAR - Origin - Destination Patterns June 2015 Carson Coleville Dresslerville Gardnerville Lake Tahoe Markleeville Minden Paynesville Pleasant Valley Sierra Pines Woodfords Hung-A- Lel-Ti Placerville Truckee Total Carson 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 6 Coleville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dresslerville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 5 Gardnerville 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 0 4 9 0 0 20 Lake Tahoe 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 13 0 0 14 Markleeville 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 17 Minden 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Paynesville 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 Pleasant Valley 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Sierra Pines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Woodfords 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Hung-A-Lel-Ti 3 0 5 8 13 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 45 Placerville 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 Truckee 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 5 0 7 20 14 17 0 5 1 0 7 45 4 0 125 Source: Alpine County Destinations Origins ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B Public Input ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Turn over for project contact information and where to return the survey Alpine County Short Range Transit Plan Update Comment Card The Alpine County Local Transportation Commission has hired LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. to study public transit needs and options in Alpine County. Currently, Alpine County Dial- A-Ride provides on-demand public transit service Monday through Wednesday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM. Transportation to out of area medical/dental appointments is provided on Thursdays by appointment only. The ultimate objective of this study is to determine where and when Alpine County residents require transportation and if Alpine County Transit could meet those needs. 1. What area of Alpine County do you live in (community/cross streets)? 2. Do you speak only English? Yes No If “No”, how well do you speak English? Very Well Less than very well 3. Are you a veteran? Yes No 4. Do you have a car? Yes No Do you have a driver’s license? Yes No 5. Do you ride the Dial-A-Ride? Yes No How 6. Do you need transportation to work? Yes No Work What days do you work (check all that apply)? M T W TH F S Sun Start work End work 7. Do you need transportation to medical/dental appointments? Yes No Which How 8. Do you need transportation to shopping/errands? Yes No Which shopping center? How 9. Do you ever need to make connections to other buses which travel to Tahoe, Reno, Sacramento, Los Angeles, other places? Yes No If yes, 10. How else could Dial-A-Ride help you get you to where you need to go? ---PAGE BREAK--- For more information, or to provide additional input, please contact Genevieve Evans of LSC at [EMAIL REDACTED], or [PHONE REDACTED] Please return card to: Genevieve Evans [EMAIL REDACTED] PO Box 5875 Tahoe City, CA 96145 Voice: [PHONE REDACTED] Fax: [PHONE REDACTED] Or Alpine County Health and Human Services Or Alpine County Transit Driver ---PAGE BREAK--- Area Eng. Only language? Eng. Ability? Veteran? Car? License? DAR User? DAR Frequency? DAR Place? Need transport to Work? Work Location? Work Days? Work Start Time Work End Time MARKLEEVILLE Y N/A Y N N Y 4/MONTH TOWN Y N/A M, W N/A N/A MARKLEEVILLE Y N/A N N N Y TOWN N N/A N/A N/A N/A COMMUNITY Y N/A N Y Y Y 2/MONTH GARDNERVILLE/CARSON N N/A N/A N/A N/A MARKLEEVILLE Y N/A N Y Y Y 2/YEAR DENTIST N HOPE VALLEY M‐SUN VARIES VARIES Y N/A N N N Y 1‐2/WEEK TOWN N N/A N/A N/A N/A MARKLEEVILLE Y N/A N N Y Y M, W 2:00 PM 4:30 PM MARKLEEVILLE N VERY WELL N N N Y VERY OFTEN N N/A N/A N/A N/A PAYNESVILLE Y N/A N Y N Y OFTEN TOWN N N/A N/A N/A N/A MARKLEEVILLE Y N/A N Y Y Y DEPENDS TOWN Y GARDNERVILLE M‐SAT 8:00 AM 4:30 PM PLEASANT VALLEY Y N/A N Y Y Y 1/MONTH TOWN Y SOUTH LAKE TAHOE T, F, SAT 10:00 AM 4:00 PM HUNG A LEL TI Y N/A N Y Y N N/A N N/A N/A N/A N/A STRAIGHT STREET Y N/A N Y Y N N/A Y GARDNERVILLE 7:00 AM 3:30‐4:00 PM HUNG A LEL TI Y N/A N Y Y N N/A N N/A M‐SUN 9:00 AM 9:00 PM FOOTHILL RD & HWY 88 Y N/A N Y Y Y ONCE N N/A N/A N/A N/A WEST CARSON, SPRINGS N VERY WELL N Y Y N N/A MARKLEEVILLE Y N/A N N Y Y 1/WEEK GARDNERVILLE/COLEVILLE N N/A N/A N/A N/A MARKLEEVILLE Y N/A N Y Y Y 1‐2/MONTH GARDNERVILLE/CARSON N N/A N/A N/A N/A WOODFORDS Y N/A Y Y Y N N/A N N/A N/A N/A N/A MARKLEEVILLE Y N/A Y Y Y N N/A N N/A N/A N/A N/A WOODFORDS Y N/A N Y Y N N/A N N/A N/A N/A N/A WOODFORDS Y N/A Y Y Y N N/A N N/A N/A N/A N/A ALPINE VILLAGE Y N/A Y Y Y N N/A N N/A N/A N/A N/A WOODFORDS Y N/A N Y Y N N/A N N/A N/A N/A N/A ---PAGE BREAK--- Med/Dent ‐ Need transport? Med/Dent ‐ Clinic? Med/Dent ‐ Frequency? Need transportation to shopping/errands? Shopping/Errands City? Shopping center? Shopping/Errands Frequency? Use Connex to Travel buses? Where? Other Dial‐A‐Ride Uses? Y WASHOE Y GARDNERVILLE SMITHS 1/WEEK Y EVERYDAY IN CASE SOMETHING COMES UP Y 2/MONTH Y GARNERVILLE RALEYS N N/A RUN ON FRIDAYS Y DRESSLERVILLE 1‐2/MONTH Y GARDNERVILLE SMITHS, WA1/WEEK N N/A LOCAL TRIPS ON THURS/FRI. OUTINGS ON SAT. Y WALKER 2/YEAR N N/A N/A N/A N N/A CAR STARTING TO FAIL. WILL USE DIAL‐A‐RIDE SOON. Y UC DAVIS 2‐3/YEAR Y GARNERVILLE SMITHS 4/MONTH Y UCD & UCSF DIFFERENT MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS Y COLEVILLE HHS 1‐2/MONTH Y GARDNERVILLE ANY 4/MONTH Y HAVEN'T YET ALPINE KIDS EVENTS, SOME AFTER HOURS Y 1/MONTH Y GARDNERVILLE WALMART 1/MONTH N N/A SERVICE ON THURS/FRI Y BARTON 1‐2/MONTH Y GARDNERVILLE SMITHS 1/WEEK N N/A SERVICE ALL WEEK. ON CALL SATURDAY. Y COMMUNITY‐LT 1/MONTH Y GARDNERVILLE RALEYS 2/WEEK N N/A GO OUT OF TOWN WHENEVER SOMEONE NEEDS TO GO. RUN M‐F. Y BARTON 1/MONTH Y LT, CARSON, GARDNERVILLE ALL 2/MONTH N N/A RUN THURS/FRI WASHOE SOMETIMES GARDNERVILLE WALMART 1/WEEK Y ELKO, NV N N N/A N/A N/A N N/A WORK EVENING AND EARLY MORNINGS N TRIBAL N GARDNERVILLE N/A Y TRIBAL 1/MONTH N N/A N/A N/A N N/A TRANSPORT TO COLLEGE AT TAHOE COMMUNITY COLLEGE Y COLEVILLE 3‐4/YEAR Y TAHOE, CARSON, MINDEN Y RENO, TAHOE AVAILABLE MORE OFTEN. MORE VANS AND STAFFING. Y COLEVILLE Y HAVE A STANDING APPOINTMENT TO DO LAUNDRY AND GROCERY SHOP. MORE THAN ONE DAY A WEEK. AVAILABLE ON FRIDAYS. Y Y GARDNERVILLE RALEYS 2/MONTH Y TAHOE, SACRAMOPERATE 5 DAYS/WEEK Y CVMC Y GARDNERVILLE RALEYS 2/WEEK Y TAHOE, CARSONREASONABLE PRICED UBER N N N/A N/A N/A Y DIAL A RIDE IS NECESSARY FOR THE ELDERLY AND THOSE WHO DON’T DRIVE FOR SHOPPING, MEDICAL APPTS, AND OTHER ERRANDS. A TRANSIT SYSTEM FOR ALL MIGHT HELP REDUCE ATMOSPHERIC CARBON. N Y CARSON CITY WALMART 1/WEEK Y TAHOE N N N/A N/A N/A N N/A WE MAY NEED TO USE DIAL‐A‐RIDE IN THE FUTURE AS WE GROW OLDER AND UNABLE TO DRIVE. I THINK IT IS A WORTHWILE SERVICE TO MANY IN OUR COMMUNITY. N N N/A N/A N/A N N/A NOT A NEEDED SERVICE IN MY OPINION Y CARSON CITY 2/YEAR Y CARSON CITY/GARDNERVILLE WALMART 1/WEEK N N/A I CAN GET AROUND PRESENTLY WITH MY CAR‐ BUT WANT TO BE SURE INTEREST IS SHOWN SO IT IS AVAILABLE IN THE FUTURE‐ WHEN I NEED HELP.