Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
AC TRANSIT DISTRICT'S SERVICE REDUCTIONS CASE STUDY
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
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%
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
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
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
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
"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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 , -
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<lp to Questic~n #7. 6. Please estTm ate the trove) time and financial effects of the AC Transit service reductians, for the ONE trip most affected by the service re~ductians: i a. Before the service reductions, from the time I started my trip to get to where I was going too me about minutes. The same trip now I takes about minutes. b. Before the service reductions, how did you pay far the one most affected trip on AC Transit? Please provide the payment method for a ones way trip, from where you started to where you were going. O Cash - How much2 ~ O Ticket Book (10 tickets): Which type: O Loco! Adult O Aclult Transbay-SF lip Local Youth/Senior/Disable~d Q Youth/Senior/DiscJbled Transbay-SF 1~ Monthly passes: Which type: Q Local Adult O Local Youth lO LocclSenior/Disabled O Transbay-SF O BART Plus - Cost of BART portion of one-way trip: S c. How do you currently pay for the one most affected trip on AC Transit? 5. How do you travel now on the ONEtrip most | O Cash - How much? 5 affected by the AC Transit service reductions | O Ticket Book (10 tickets): Which type (Check all that apply) Q Local Adult Ct Adult Transbay-SF 1~ Local Youth/Senior/Disabled Ride AC Transit at another time - 1~ Youth/Senior/Disabled Transbay-SF Ride AC Transit on another day O BART O Taxi GI Walk or bicycle I O Monthly passes: Which type: ~ Local Adult Q Local Youth O Auto, driving alone ~O LocalSenior/Disablerd Q Transbay-SF O Auto, shared with: O a family member , O BART Plus - Cost of BART portion of O a friend or fellow worker Ione-way trip: $ O Other (please specify what): ~O I do not currently use AC Transit for the tr G1 ~ no Longer make the trip_~3
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
