|
Items in cart [4] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 129
AC TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SERVICE REDUCTIONS
CASE STUDY
OCR for page 130
OCR for page 131
AC TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SERVICE REDUCTIONS
AC Transit District is the third largest transit operator in California,
headquartered in Oakland. Located across the bay from San Francisco, it serves a
population of 1.6 million people. AC Transit operates a fleet of 702 vehicles,
ranging from mini-buses to articulated coaches, throughout its 390 square mile
service area. East Bay residents make approximately 206,000 trips on AC Transit
daily.
According to a 1993 on-board survey, 48% of its riders are African-
American; 24% are White; 11% are Asian; 10% are Hispanic; and 6% are other
ethnicities. Thirty-eight percent of the trip destinations are work-related and 28%
are to school.
AC Transit is governed by a seven-member, directly-elected Board of
Directors. It employs over 2,000 people.
COSTS EXCEED REVENUES
At the end of its 1994-95 fiscal year, AC Transit District faced a $2.3 million
shortfall out of a total budget of $144,464,000. The deficit for the following fiscal
year was projected at $11 million. To address this financial crisis, the District
implemented a to reduction in service between December 1995 and June 1996.
In a series of public workshops prior to the service reductions, AC Transit
outlined the following reasons that costs exceeded revenues: i
.
School-day Transportation: When school districts eliminated their own
busing, AC Transit absorbed $8 million a year in costs to transport
50,000 to 60,000 children.
Unfunded Mandates: Clean air requirements, random drug testing, and
ADA paratransit were cited as new costs AC Transit had to fund from
· ~
exlstmg resources.
Reduced Operating Assistance: Congress' cuts in federal operating
funds meant a loss of millions of dollars in revenue to AC Transit.
Before implementing the service reductions, AC Transit attempted to reduce
its internal costs by such measures as eliminating vacant positions and shifting
the workload to remaining staff; deferring employee pay raises for several years;
deferring contributions to the retirement fund; pursuing grants and private-sector
partnerships; and working with the school districts to modify the schedules.2 In
May 1995, the District also adopted a fare increase, raising the cash fare from
$1.10 to $1.25.
1
OCR for page 132
Since then, the District has continued to seek new revenue sources.
Because it was heavily reliant on property taxes, AC Transit was particularly hurt
by Proposition 13, California's property tax-cutting measure passed in 1978. Since
Prop. 13 requires a 2/3 vote of the electorate for any new tax, AC Transit placed a
parcel tax measure on the ballot in November 1996. However, the measure was
just shy of the needed 2/3 vote, losing by less than a percentage point.
The City of Oakland, as well, has attempted to get private sector support
for expanded bus service. It imposed a $280,000 mitigation fee for new bus service
on the developer of a Super K-Mart store. The store operates 24 hours a day with
seven work shifts in an area of Oakland with no existing bus service. Although
the store is now built and open, negotiations have not yet been successful in
providing public transportation to the site.
SERVICE REDUCTIONS
In order to reduce approximately 1.000 hours of bus service bv June 1996
and save $6 million a year, AC Transit:
Eliminated all "owl" service between midnight and 5 a.m.;
Eliminated most other "owl" service after 10 p.m.;
Eliminated most evening service after 7 or ~ p.m., except on 21 basic
trunk lines;
Eliminated weekend service except for 22 basic trunk lines on Saturdays
(21 on Sundays and holidays); and
Reduced frequencies on 12 lines and restructured others.3
A significant community outreach effort was conducted to inform riders of the
proposed service reductions. Outreach included ~ community meetings, 30 public
agency briefings, and 6 public hearings. A total of 1,244 comments were received,
with over 65% directed at the cutbacks in weekend service. The public's concerns
were grouped in the following categories:
Impact
Access to employment
Access to sociaVrecreation activities
No alternative means of transportation
Shopping
Access to medical facilities
Access to school
Miscellaneous comments
2
Percent of comments
33%
33%
32%
25%
17%
6%
5%
OCR for page 133
AC Transit prepared an Initial Study in September 1996, resulting in a
Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In
the Initial Study, the District acknowledged that, "Without the proposed service
the lives of some riders will be completely disrupted, while other riders will be
inconvenienced." The [initial Study did not attempt to answer these socio-
economic concerns, however, pointing out that the CEQA Guidelines did not
consider such impacts as significant effects on the environment requiring further
analysis. Instead, it stated, "These are serious and difficult consequences of the
proposed service reductions which the AC Transit Board of Directors wall have to
deal with in determining what service will be eliminated."
In order to reduce the socio-economic impacts, the Board deleted some
proposed reductions. Where there were gaps in coverage, the Board combined
some routes. Therefore, although the proposal would have resulted in a 16%
service reduction, adjustments made by the Board of Directors after the public
hearings resulted in an actual reduction of 12%.
The annual loss of ridership was projected at 11%. In order to estimate the
actual loss of ridership, AC Transit staff compared quarterly ridership counts
collected in September 1996 to those collected in September 1996:
TABLE 1
PERCENTAGE IMPACTS OF FY 1995-96
SERVICE REDUCTION PROGRAM*
Operation Service Ridership**
Weekday -5.2 -6.0
Saturday -35.9 -13.9
Sunday -33.5 -14.0
In a February 1997 report to the Board of Directors, AC Transit staff
concludes, "the data shows that we removed the service that was the least
travelled by our riders. Although some patrons are now unable to make some
trips at night or on weekends, the vast majority can continue to do so."***
*February 26, 1997, Board of Director's Agenda Item.
**Although these estimates indicate an overall 9.5~o loss in ridership, AC
Transit has cautioned that, since these are preliminary counts, they should not be
considered annualized ridership losses. The annualized loss of ridershin will be
_ . . .. . -
available in June ISH7 alter additional passenger counts have been tabulated.
***February 26, 1997, Board of Director's Agenda Item.
3
OCR for page 134
MEASURING THE EFFECTS OF THE SERVICE REDUCTIONS ON
PERSONAL IMMOBILITY
Interviews with representatives of various transportation and service
agencies corroborated the District staffs conclusion. The vast majority of AC
Transit's riders continue to enjoy adequate levels of service. For example, the
Executive Director of the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency
inclicated that no adjustments to the Congestion Management Plan were required,
since AC Transit's service reductions did not affect commute periods. The
Employee Transportation Coordinator at Kaiser Hospital and Clinic in Oakland
saw no changes in patronage on their three free shuttles, which transport patients
and employees from a BART station to their campus. She surmised that bus
riders were not shining to the shuttles as a result of AC Transit's service changes.
Yet, the decline in ridership, as describer] in Table T inclicates that there
were many people whose lives were directly affected by the service reductions. In
order to discover what these effects were, the research team developed a survey
for this case study. In March 1997 the survey was sent to 800 people who had
identified themselves as transit users or supporters during the public hearing
process. In addition, the survey was distributed at three senior centers and
during an on-board survey of routes representative of the entire AC Transit
system. A total of 524 surveys were completed. Appendix A contains a copy of a
blank survey fog-.
One of the survey questions asked how the service cutbacks had an impact
on people's daily lives. A number of respondents mentioned the direct economic
impact of paying for alternative transportation, such as taxis; paying car expenses,
including parking; and paying a second fare, caused by the need to transfer from
the bus to BART in order to complete a trip. "Eight taxis a month is about $56.00,
which ~ cannot afford," wrote one person. Another person said the service
reductions resulted in "a great expense on weekends for groceries, requiring a taxi
trip of $10 one way."
Comments on Weekend Cuts
"No more Sunday concerts. "
"Couic! not visit friend in hospital..."
"Zero night life!"
"San Francisco is out for recreation."
"Trapped at home."
~.
Besides the cost to obtain such
essentials as groceries, others
mentioned how the lack of weekend
bus services limited their activities.
"I hac! to miss going to my church
service in Oakland," wrote one
respondent, adding, "To get to my
church in Alameda, it takes me 40
minutes to walk." Another said, "I
used to take my son to visit my
parents on weekends. We don't do it as often now." And yet another noted, 'five
cannot go out at night or see movies. The buses stop running at 6:30-7:30 p.m."
Altogether, 70% of the survey respondents said that their bus trips most affected
by the service reductions included at least one weekend day, and 86% included at
least an evening or weekend day.
4
OCR for page 135
The highest percentage of trip purposes affected by the service reductions
were job related, mentioned by 42% of the survey respondents. The other trips
most affected were for shopping (19%), school (13%), and recreation (10%). About
half of these trips occurred every weekday, while 20% occurred only on weekends.
The job-related impact on those who don't work the typical 9-5 workday was
evidenced by these comments:
· "T work part-time in a movie theater. My schedule varies, but since
there is no bus service weekends or holidays, ~ cannot be scheduled to
work."
· "Lured to work nights. AC Transit cut 72 Line to Richmond, resulting
in my not being able to stay on the job."
· "I arrive at work 30-40 minutes later- extending my work day.
Saturday work involves a 3 mile walk to BART and back, unless family
member can pick me up."
Other problems mentioned by respondents included:
.
College students who have had to discontinue course work offered only
at night;
Safety concerns by those who have to walk home in the evening now or
those who wait longer at bus stops on lines with reduced frequencies;
Longer trips on more crowded buses; and
Health problems experienced by the elderly who either cannot walk to
the bus or are in pain doing so.
A number of survey respondents expressed frustration that they have lost
their independence and must rely more on family, friends and neighbors to
transport them. Some who do drive admit they have stopped taking the bus
entirely. However, most ride the bus at a different time or day. According to the
survey, the principal modes now used by respondents in place of their former trips
are:
Ride bus at different time or day
Walk or bicycle
Ride with others
BART
Taxi
Drive alone
40%
27%
24%
21%
21%
10%
In addition to these changes in travel modes, survey respondents reported
that they take far fewer trips than they did before the cuts. Table 2 shows the
5
OCR for page 136
changes in the number of trips taken before and after the service reductions, in
response to the question, "What were the purposes and frequency of all AC Transit
trips affected by the service reductions? How often did you travel: (fit! in the
round trips per week)." Survey respondents were offered the seven trip purpose
choices listed in Table 2, and asked to state the trips per week they made for each
purpose before and after the service reductions. Table 2 shows the number of
responses received for each trip purpose (from 228 for shopping to 35 for senior
centers). The second column then illustrates what percentage that number
represents out of the 624 completed surveys.
The next two columns of Table 2 show the average weekly number of trips
made before the service reductions and now. The final condemn shows the percent
change in average weekly trips, indicating that the type of trips affected by the
service reductions were cut back by about half, or more, for all trip purposes
except jobs and school, where the cutbacks were 36% and 27% respectively. While
there could have been some memory problems in answering this question since no
trip logs were kept, it is at least clear that bus riders perceived a sharp decline in
their trip frequencies.*
TABLE 2
DECLINES IN AVERAGE
WEEKT Y FREQUENCY OF TRIPS
AFFECTED BY SERVICE REDUCTIONS
l TRIP PURPOSE | RESPONSES | AVERAGE WEEKLY TRIPS | PERCENlr |
CHANGE
Number Percent Before Now
Jobs
Shopping
Recreation
School
Health Care
Senior Center
Other
ID _
183
101
102
35
79
4.9
2.9
l
2.7
1.5
3.2 1 -35%
-49%
-67%
-27%
35Yo
19%
19%
7%
= 15% .
2.4
-56%
One result of the service reductions is a loss of confidence in public transportation,
summed up by someone who wrote, "l don't bother counting on AC any more."
But for those who are transit-dependent, the loss is coupled with a fear of
isolation. One woman had this poignant response:
*The results of Table 2 are illustrative of the service reduction effects but are
not utilized to estimate the economic costs.
6
OCR for page 137
"I am so afraid that the buses to the hills will be cancelled that it
leads to arguments with my husband over our future we moved to
this house believing we could rely on AC Transit to get us home every
night. Now my entire future is uncertain. I'm terrified of being
trapped up or down the hill with no transportation. That fear hangs
over my head constantly, as there are always rumors that AC Transit
is going to cancel this or that."
QUANTIFYING THE: ECONOMIC COSTS OF THE SERVICE REDUCTIONS
The survey designed for this research included several questions that
attempt to quantify the economic costs of the service reductions on individual
riders. Respondents were asked to estimate the changes in travel time and
expenses before and after the cuts. If they no longer use AC Transit, they were
asked how much they pay for an alternative mode of transportation, such as taxis
or BART, in order to make the same trip. From these survey answers, the
research team has developed a methodology that calculates the costs to riders as
$48.1 million in added travel expenses, past and continuing income losses,
and the value of adcled travel time. The following section describes the
technical approach and how these results were calculated.
Technical Approach
by:
In March 1997 the survey was developed, pretested, and then distributed
.
.
-
Mailing to 800 persons from the public hearings
This yielded 237 completed surveys, a 29.6% response rate.
On-board survey of 869 passengers on seven representative bus lines
This yielded 249 completed surveys. Another 249 said they were
affected by the cuts but declined to complete the survey due to lack of
time on the bus or personal reasons. Thus, 498 people, or 57.3% of
the passengers, said they were affected.
· Handouts at three senior centers
- This yielded 38 completed surveys.
As a result of this distribution process, a total of 624 surveys were completed.
This is a sizable sample upon which to base conclusions about the economic costs.
The completed surveys cannot be considered a random sample, because
there was no way to have full access to all people affected by the service
reductions. Nonetheless, the survey is as representative as possible, given the
difficulty of tracking riders who were affected by the cutback and who no longer
ride AC Transit as a result.
7
OCR for page 138
No significant differences were noted in the survey results among the three
groups to whom it was distributed. Therefore, the results were merged in the
calculation of the economic costs. An expansion factor was derived in order to
apply the survey results systemwide to AC Transit's entire ridership. See
Appendix B for an explanation of the expansion factor and how it was applied.
Economic Results
Based on the survey, costs were calculated for added travel expenses, for
past and continuing income losses, and for the value of added travel time.
Act~ed travel expenses: Forty-three percent of survey respondents reported
added costs for their present mode of travel in place of the trip they used to take
on AC Transit. The added average cost was $31.36 a week, amounting to $7,086 a
week for all respondents, primarily for taxis, BART, or automobile expenses.
Multiplying $7,086 by the expansion factor and by 52 weeks amounts to $30.7
million annually systemwide. These are real and substantial additional living
expenses for transit users affected by the service reductions.
Due to the large size of these travel expenses, the research teem examined
these reported costs in more detail. In order to substantiate these costs, Tables 3
and 4 show further breakdowns of added travel expenses by travel mode and by
trip purpose, respectively. Each table has four tabular columns, listing in turn the
valid cases (number of usable responses), the average weekly cost, the total weekly
cost (product of the first two columns), and the percentage share of total travel
costs represented by each line in the tables.*
Clearly, from Table 3, taxi expenses dominate the added travel expenses
making up 79.9% of additional expenses. BART is the next most important
alternative, at 14.4%. The "Other" modes referred to in items 6, 8, 9 were
generally for paratransit, shuttles, BART Express, or non-AC Transit buses. In
Table 4, job and shopping trips alone account for 71.8% of total added travel
expenses, with other purposes ranging from zero to 8.7%. The results from these
two tables appear plausible and consistent with the total level of $30.7 million in
added transportation expenses.
I,
*Totals vary slightly between the two tables and our overall total because
respondents included additional combinations that were too small in number to
calculate or because they left some answers blank.
8
OCR for page 139
TABLE 3
AI)DED TRAVEL EXPENSES BY TRAVEL MODE
Travel Mode
1. Taxi Only
2. Taxi/BART
3. Taxi/Auto
4. BART Only
5. BART/Auto
1
6. BART/Other
7. Auto Only
8. Auto/Other
9. Other Only
Weekly Expense Percentage of
Valid Cases AverageTotal Total Expenses
61 $60.51$3,691.0 50.0~o
19 72.711,381.5 18.7
11 75.32828.6 11.2
40 19.14765.5 10.4
10 19.58195.8 2.6
4 30.82123.3 1.7
45 7.17322.8 4.4
1 11.5011.5 0.2
9 6.2356.1 0.8
TOTALS 1 200 1 36.88 1 $7,376.1 1 100.0%
TABLE 4
AI)DED TRAVEL EXPENSES BY TRIP PURPOSE
Trip Purpose
1. Jobs
2. Shopping
3. Recreation
4. School
5. Health Care
.
6. Senior Center
7. Other
TOTALS
.
Weekly Expenses
Valid Cases Average Total
98 $42.61 $4,178.4
43 19.38 833.3
19 27.80 528.1
29 20.96 607.9
10 31.55 315.5
O O O
23 22.40 515.3
Percentage of
Total Expenses
59.9%
11.9
7.6
8.7
-
4.5
o
7.4
222 1 31.43 1 $6,978.5 1 100.0%
Past income losses: An average of $324 per month in lost income was
experienced by 7.4% of survey respondents for an average of 4.35 months.
Systemwide, this amounts to $2.2 million in past income losses (or an equivalent
annual cost of about $19S,000 over 15 years at a 4% discount rate).
9
OCR for page 140
Continuing income losses: These income losses are continuing at an average
of $393 a month for 4.2% of the respondents, who report that they have not yet
found other employment and travel modes. This amounts to $~.7 million a year,
systemwide, in continuing income losses.
Added travel lime: About 43% of survey respondents reported increases in
travel time over their previous bus trip, averaging one hour and 47 minutes a
week. The total added travel time systemwide is 33,428 hours a week or 1.7
million hours a year. If this added travel time is valued at a minims wage of $6
per hour, it would amount to $~.6 million a year.*
In the tabulation that follows, annual benefits are construed to be the $4.S
million annual savings to AC Transit as a result of the service reductions, and
annual costs are the total $48.1 million in losses to AC Transit passengers just
cited.
Dollars
in Millions
Annual Benefits (to AC Transit)
Annual Costs
Added travel expenses
Annualized value of past income
losses
Continuing income losses
Value of added travel time @ $6.hr.
Total annual costs
Ratio of benefits to costs
$4.S
$30.7
0.2
S.7
S.6
$48.1
0.1
The resulting benefit/cost ratio of 0.1 is only a tenth of the minimum ratio
of 1.0 that is usually considered necessary to qualify a project for public funding.
Even if many of the affected AC Transit riders adjust to the service reductions
eventually, as by moving or by regaining lost employment or by riding vans for the
handicapped instead of taxis, it seems likely that the costs of the cutbacks in lost
*The $~.6 million is not an economic loss except for persons who could be
employed during those hours. However, the value of travel time is a useful
surrogate for the importance that people attach to their time. The value of time
can be measured by people's demonstrated willingness to pay for time savings in
situations involving tradeoffs of time and money, such as paying to take a toll
road to save time over a congested road or using a taxi for a faster but costlier trip
to work. It is accepted practice in economic studies to include the value of time
savings or losses as a separately identified item.
10
OCR for page 141
opportunities for travel and shopping and job connections would continue to far
outweigh their benefits. These economic results therefore suggest the following
conclusion:
Urban bus service can be enormously productive economically, and
its curtailment, even in low-patronage, off-peak hours, can create added
travel costs and income losses for riders that exceed by many times the
dollar savings to transit agencies from service reductions.
IMPLICATIONS OF SERVICE REDUCTIONS ON WELFARE REFORM
AND HEALTH CARE ACCESS
Public transportation, as an element of welfare reform and access to jobs
and health care, is an afterthought with public agencies assigned to these issues.
There is an assumption that public transportation will be available. When
transportation is thought of as an element of the problem, it is not addressed as a
primary issue. It is perceived as an adjunct issue that is the responsibility of the
transit agency, disconnected from provision of social services, except for financial
assistance in underwriting recipients' fares.
These observations are based on a series of interviews conducted to assess
the perceived erects of AC Transit's service reductions on social service agency
clients. The interviews ranged from state legislative committees working on
welfare reform to non-profit health care clinics. At the state level, a legislative
group working on the support services needed to implement welfare reform does
not see transportation as a front-burner issue needing new legislation. Neither is
transportation addressed in the governor's proposal on welfare reform in
California.
In Oakland's Employment Development Department (EDD), a state agency
offering job training and placement, lack of transportation is recognized as an
impediment to getting a job. However, it is lumped into the statistics collected on
whether a client is "Able and Available" to take a job. EDD has no breakdown of
how large the problem is and has not coordinated with AC Transit on where
clients needing assistance are located.
EDD does know that 67% of their caseload--people looking for jobs--live in
Oakland, which lacks enough jobs to meet the caseload's demand. The jobs are in
the southern portion of the county and adjacent counties, which are very poorly
connected by public transportation to Oakland. One example of this disconnect
was cited in an interview with the Job Service Program Manager, who was
contacted by an employer looking for workers. The employer reins a telephone
answering service in a city in the county about 35 miles from Oakland. The
employer was incensed at the "lazy welfare recipients," because no one applied for
her jobs. However, neither AC Transit nor BART serve this area of the county, so
there was no way for Oakland residents without cars to accept the answering
· · ~
service Coos.
11
OCR for page 142
Alameda County's Social Services Agency, like EDD, gives clients bus
tickets and BART expenses for transportation to jobs and to job training and
interviews. It operates GAIN (Greater Avenues for Independence), the statewide
employment services program for recipients of AFDC (Aid to Families with
Dependent Children, now renamed TANF, Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families). In Fiscal Year 1995-96, the Social Services Agency spent $46S,171 on
transportation for the 2~488 participants it served. Sixty-four percent of the GAIN
participants, who were overwhelmingly female, needed the transportation
assistance. This includes transportation to child care as well as jobs, which not
only adds to the GAIN program's costs but can greatly increase the mother's travel
time needed to get to work. Currently 11% of welfare recipients are enrolled in
the GAIN program. The new requirement is 25%. The Program Manager at the
Social Services Agency estimates this welfare redo- requirement will cause the
transportation component to increase two-and-one-half times its current cost for
the GAIN program.
"The money to get you where you need to go has been in the budget," said
the Program Manager, "but the question of access is it (transportation)
available hasn't been addressed before." Besides the availability of transit, she
expressed a concern for the safety of women who will need to walk to and from
public transit to get to swing-shift jobs.
The Director of the Emergency Services Network of Alameda Countv
expects that problems with public transportation, not now in the forefront with
social services agencies, will become more sharply focused with welfare reform.
He believes that reinstatement of night and weekend bus services will be critical,
because people who face termination of welfare benefits will need to take entry
level jobs in these off hours. The Network advocates transit fare discounts for
low-income workers, who have difficulty purchasing a $45 monthly bus pass on a
minimum wage salary. Welfare-to-work programs will also be facing the trend by
employers to use part-time or on-call workers. Combined with reductions in
frequency on feeder bus routes, AC Transit will be even more difficult to use for
those employed in jobs with irregular hours.
Many clients of the East Oakland Health Center use AC Transit buses to
get to their appointments, according to the Administrator Director. Because the
Center is located on a major trunk line, he has not noticed any access problems
with AC Transit's service reductions. However, he predicts that the night and
weekend cuts will affect his clients as welfare reform is implemented. Mothers
who can now spend the better part of a day on transit, going to and from their
childrenls doctor's appointments, will be working. Therefore, they will have to fit
all their errands and health care appointments into the evenings. Many of the
families now served are the working poor, in jobs just above the minimum wage
with no benefits. The lost wages to take off work for a doctor's appointment can
be compounded when a long bus ride with transfers is required to visit the clinic.
12
OCR for page 143
CONCLUSION
When the service reductions were proposed in 1995, the General Manager
and the Board of Directors were clearly aware of the fact that the service
reductions would negatively affect a portion of AC Transit's riders, and they
attempted to make cuts that would be the least harmful. But many of the factors
driving the service reductions continue to be beyond their control. For example,
AC Transit's General Manager pointed out that President Clinton has proposed
$100 million for transit in his welfare-to-work budget but this does not represent
additional dollars, since the overall budget request has not increased for transit.
Congress has been reducing transit funds at the same time it is demanding that
welfare recipients find work, apparently not recognizing the interrelationship
between the two policy issues. California's requirement for a 2/3 vote makes
filling these federal gaps with local funding extremely difficult to enact.
This case study has demonstrated the high social, economic and helm en
costs that transit riders face when service reductions must be implemented. As a
result, AC Transit riders have recently formed the AC Transit Bus Riders Union.
Similar unions exist in Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York City. These
more-established riders' unions have held demonstrations, filed lawsuits, and
lobbied state legislators on behalf to get more support for bus transit.
John Woodbury, a member of the AC Transit Board of Directors, supports
the riders' union. "l think it's great," he said. "There's no hope for AC Transit in
the long run, or any urban transit system, unless the riders organize."4
13
OCR for page 144
REFERENCES
1. Mode! for Community Outreach & Public Hearing Process, September 1995.
2. Mode! for Community Outreach & Public Hearing Process, September 1995.
3.
Mode! for Community Outreach & Public Hearing Process, September 1995.
4. San Francisco Chronicle, March al, 1997
14
, -
OCR for page 145
OCR for page 147
OCR for page 148
OCR for page 149
OCR for page 150
Representative terms from entire chapter:
added travel
APPENDIX A
SURVEY FORM
A C T R A N S I T R -F D E R -5 U R V E Y
. . _
_~= ~ If you ore still able to make the trip, but at a different
time or by a dJfrerent means of travel crease answer
Instructions: Please ct~ecl< the boxes for all applicable
answers. Please mail your response by March 21,1997
in the enclosed postage-paid envelope.
1. What type of service reductions most affected
your trips on AC Transit?
C1 Saturday service LI Sunday service
O Early a.m. service O Evening or night service
Q Service frequency reduction
C1 Other (please specify
For questions 2 to 7, please select the ObIE trip that
has been most affected by the bus service recluchans,
in terms of its impact on your daily life.
2. What is the purpose of the ONE tap most
affected by the AC Transit service reductions
Q Job 121 Shopping Q Health care
1O School Q Senior Center Q Recreation
1D Other (please specify)
3. Route numberts) of AC Transit buses you
were formerly nding on the ONE most
affected trip:
4. Days that you usually made such a trip:
ID M O T Q W 3 Th O F Q Sat Q Sun
, .
Question ink. If you no langef make the trip or make
it less frequently, sI
d. If you no longer use AC Transit, how much do
you pay for a one-way trip, from where you
started to where you are going?
(Check all that apply.)
Taxi fares ~for ~ one-way trip
Cl BART tickets $
121 Auto expenses
for about miles one-way
O Other expenses (Piec~se specify for what):
If you click not answer Question #6, please answer
Question #7. Otherwise, skip to Be.
7. What has been the result of no longer making
the ONE most affected trip, or making it less
frequently? (Check al! that apply)
O Inconvenience
O Income loss averaging $ /month
for about . months
(is lossstill continuing? no yes)
O Any other consequences?
8. Please describe how service cutbacks have had
an impact on your daily life:
9. What were the purposes and frequency of all
AC Transit trips affected by the service
reductions? How omen did you travel:
All! in the roun8-trips per week)
Check All Trip
Purposes
Affected
O Job
121 School
Shopping
121 Health Care
Q Senior Center
Recreation
O Other:
(please specify)
Trips/Week Trips/Week
Before After
Change Change
Please complete the information below if you would
like us to keep you informed of our need for any
further public involvement in this research SttJ8y, such
as focus or discussion groups. We will pay 550 for
focus group session of up to 3 hours.
Name:
Phone:
Address:
cityn;P:
Return questionnaire in enclosed postage-paid
envelope or mail to:
Grain & Associates
120 Santa Margarita
Menlo Park, CA 94025
APPENDIX B
EXPLANATION OF SUBVEY METHODOLOGY
CALCULATIONS
The key number in expanding the survey results systemwide was the factor
for converting total survey results to all AC Transit weekday riders. This expansion
factor was derived as follows:
First, all of the 249 completed on-board surveys were compiled. Added to this
was 124.5 for one-half of the other 249 riders who were affected by cutbacks
but did not complete surveys. In effect, these non-responsive riders are being
discounted by one half because they may, on average, have experienced less
serious ejects that the responding riders. Next, the resulting number, 373.5,
was divided by 869, the total number of passengers counted on the buses that
were surveyed, to produce 0.43, the weighted proportion of riders affected by
the service cutbacks.
Next, a weekday-trips-to-riders conveyer number was derived from three
observations:
a) Total AC Transit trips must be multiplied by 0.5 to get round trips
by About 20% of AC Transit trips require a transfer, which would require
dividing the rowing trip factor of 0.5 by 1.2.
However, an uncertain number, which the research term estimates to be
at least 10% of trips, must be added, producing a divider of 1.~ rather
than 1.2, due to the combined influence of: 1) some trips being one-way
only (with the return trip typically walking or carpooling or taxi); 2) some
weekend travel not being reflected in weekday trips (people who ride
transit only on the weekend); and 3) some riders, probably a small
percentage based on the survey results, averaging more than one round
trip by bus per day.
The next result of these calculations is 0.5/. or 0.45, which was applied to
the average number of weekday AC Transit trips in September 1995 of
225,525 to obtain an estimate of 101,486 AC Transit daily riders (1995
patronage numbers, before the cutbacks, were used because the survey
picked up many riders who had discontinued some AC Transit trips, as
indicated earlier). Multiplying 101,486 by 0.43, the weighted proportion of
riders affected by the cutbacks, produces 43,639 weighted riders affected by
the service cutbacks. Dividing 43,639 by the total number of surveys, 524,
then produces a survey expansion factor of 83.3, to convert survey results to
systemwide results.
B-!
In the calculations that follow, the first number is always the total from the survey
results, and EF symbolizes the survey expansion factor of 83.3, as derived above.
Added travel time = 401.3 hours x EF = 33,428 hours/week x 52 weeks = 1.7
million hours/year x $5/hour = $~.5 million/year
Added travel costs = $7,086/week x EF x 52 weeks = $30.7 million/year
One-time income losses = $26,!334 x EF = $2.2 million
Continuing income losses = $S,654/month x EF x 12 months = $~.7
million/year
TESTING FOR SURVEY ACCURACY
Some ex-riders were captured by the survey, since 18% of the mailback
survey respondents and 29% of the senior center respondents answered that they no
longer make the same trip on AC Transit as they did previously. This compares
with only 7% of the on-board respondents who answered that they no longer make
the some trip. In total, combining the answers of these three groups, 13.7% of all
respondents said they no longer make the trip in question.
In order to assess the accuracy of the survey, the 13.7% of people who no
longer make the trip on AC Transit was multiplied by 57.3%, the number of
passengers in the on-board survey who said they were affected by the service cuts.
The answer of 7.9% fewer riders on AC Transit is close to the 9.5% fewer riders AC
Transit counted between September 1995 and September 1996. (See Table 1.) This
calculation gives a rough validation of the survey's accuracy.
B-2
