Victor Valley Commuter Needs Study

Three approaches have been selected for analysis. Each emphasizes a different approach towards satisfying the long-distance commute needs of Victor Valley residents. They are intended to be progressive, where the county could move from the first to second, and then on to the third, as resources and demand allow. With some modification, each package of services could also be implemented separately.

Strategy 1 continues and expands current transportation initiatives. It includes support for carpooling, vanpool matching, Transportation Demand Management activities, and expansion of park-and-ride capacity.
Strategy 2 would include each of the strategies identified above and supplements these with three regional express bus routes linking the Victor Valley with San Bernardino, Riverside, Redlands, and the Montclair Metrolink Station. If implemented independently from Strategy 1, additional park-and-ride capacity would need to be added.
Strategy 3 would provide more frequent service on the routes identified within Strategy 2, and add several new destinations. It also expands the amount of park-and-ride capacity within the system.

Each alternative is described more fully below. These are intended to be conceptual alternatives that provide general descriptions of approaches that would address the transportation needs of Victor Valley residents. Each would need further refinement.

Summary of Commuter Service Strategies

Strategy	Initiative	Activity
1	Rideshare Matching	Maintain current program.
	Vanpool Matching	Maintain current program. Institute aggressive program that encourages workers to join programs that subsidize their carpoolvanpool/transit usage. As the technology becomes available, support and promote casual vanpooling.
	Vanpool Subsidy	Provide a $50 monthly subsidy for all vanpool participants.
	TDM Activities	Maintain current program
	Park-and-Ride Expansion	Expand current Victorville and Hesperia Park-and-Ride lots, adding 500 additional stalls. This will be done by adding surface parking at the Hesperia lot and leased space at the Victorville lot.
2	Worker Driver Program	To reduce costs, utilize 30 passenger vehicles along with part time operators. Design flex routes that combine 1-3 fixed stops with variable drop-off locations within a defined destination zone.
	Express Small Bus	Victorville to Downtown Riverside – 3 trips morning and evening with an intermediate stop at the San Bernardino Transit Center. Victorville to the Redlands Transit Center – 3 trips morning and evening with intermediate stops in San Bernardino and Loma Linda. Victorville to the Montclair Metrolink Station and Transit Center – 3 trips morning and evening with no stops.
	Park-and-Ride Expansion	If done independently of Strategy 1, expand the current Victorville and Hesperia Park-and-Ride lots, adding 500 additional stalls.
3	Express Bus	Expanded Operations – Operate the San Bernardino, Riverside and Redlands routes described in Strategy 3 as large-scale express routes, operating every 30-minutes. This would provide allow 6 morning and 6 evening trips.
	Express Small Bus	Victorville to the Corona Metrolink Station – 3 trips morning and evening with an intermediate stop at Ontario Mills Shopping Center. Victorville to the Ontario Mills Shopping Center – 3 trips morning and evening.
	Park and Ride Expansion	If done in conjunction with Strategy 1, the continued expansion of the commute travel market will necessitate a second expansion, again 500 stalls. If done independently of the vanpool improvements identified in Strategy 1, expand the current Victorville and Hesperia Park-and-Ride lots, adding 500 additional stalls.

These strategies include several new approaches to satisfying long-distance commute travel demands, including:

Casual Vanpooling – Traditionally, vanpools have been limited to a regular rider base that sign up in advance, ride almost every day, and pay a monthly fee. This would expand vanpool options to individuals who only ride occasionally. They would reserve space on a van only for the days they intend to ride. Special computer software would search for vans, matching the origin-destination and travel time request to determine whether a seat is available. This concept would require some support staff, new computer software, and the active support of the vanpool providers.
Pass Subsidies – As illustrated in the cost-benefit analysis later in this report, vanpools tend to be the most cost-effective public transportation alternatives. Reducing the customer’s cost of vanpooling, as a form of incentive, is a way of cost-effectively encouraging alternate modes. A pass subsidy program would extend the new user subsidy program already in place, making the public subsidy permanent. It could be enacted countywide or conducted as a demonstration project limited to the Victor Valley area. An intriguing variation of the pass subsidy concept is an employer matching program, designed to encourage local employers to subsidize vanpool usage. As a means of encouraging vanpool subsidies, SANBAG would match any employer subsidy up to a limit. For example, if an employer provides a $25 subsidy, SANBAG would match that amount. This may be a strategy for enhancing existing partnerships while expanding the vanpool program’s reach. To be successful, this program would require employers to adopt a new approach to employee transportation issues. To date employer based incentives have not been embraced by Valley employers.
Employer Outreach – While SANBAG already has an extensive program of employer outreach, the addition of casual vanpooling and pass subsidy programs would place new burdens on this effort. Accordingly, additional staffing will be needed to keep up with demand.
Worker-Driver Buses - Worker driver routes are a strategy for reducing the cost of long-distance commuter services. Much of the cost of these services is typically associated with deadheading buses over long distances. In normal express service service design where commute traffic is highly directional, a bus may transport a full load of passengers to their worksite. Then, for the sole reason of getting the operator back to the garage, the bus deadheads back. A few hours later, the bus repeats its deadhead, returning to the employment site where customers are now waiting to return home. For directional services this practice is less efficient and drives up the costs of express services. Worker-driver services attempt to reduce these costs by using part-time operators who have regular jobs at the destination end of the routes. In this case, the operator would pick a bus up at the VVTA maintenance facility, deadhead to the route’s starting location, operate the service route and then park at the final destination, leaving the bus parked for the day. Kitsap Transit, in Washington State, operates an extensive worker-driver program to the Bremerton Naval Shipyard and may provide a good resource about how such programs operate.
Flex Express Routes – Deviated fixed route services are common service design strategies for local transit services. They are less common for express services but may be a way to overcome the ‘many to many’ travel demand pattern described in the previous section. Under a flex express system, major destinations would be noted on schedules and always served by the transit route. Other locations would be served on demand. In the morning, a customer would simply ask the operator to deviate to the ‘off route’ stop. In the afternoon, he/she would need to call in, asking the operator for the deviated service.

These concepts are offered as a way of starting a conversation about which non-traditional public transportation options may be appropriate for the Victor Valley.

Consideration of Commuter Rail Service
Recognizing that commuter rail service has significant appeal to Victor Valley residents, the project team performed a conceptual review of the likely costs and patronage associated with commuter rail service linking Victorville with San Bernardino.

This service would likely entail significant capital costs. Assuming that a one-way trip via commuter rail would take about 74 minutes, a minimum of two complete train sets would be required for a basic level of service. If purchased new, the locomotives would cost about $4.5 million each, with an additional $1.3 million for each rail car. Together, two train sets consisting of an engine and two cars each would cost $14 to $15 million. In addition, the operating authority would need to secure operating rights from the existing rail operator, which would likely entail additional costs.

Commuter rail operating costs are typically measured in terms of the cost of operating a single rail car for one hour. During 2007, the four commuter rail services operating in California experienced an average cost of $507.58 per rail car hour. Accordingly, a two car train operating from Victorville to San Bernardino, a trip that Amtrak schedules to take 74 minutes, would entail about $1,250 daily operating cost. If 50 people rode, the operating cost per rider would be about $25.

A final consideration about commuter rail is the travel time. As noted above, Amtrak schedules 74 minutes for the trip from Victorville to San Bernardino. The same trip can be accomplished by private auto in about 38 minutes. Adding to the inconvenience, because Metrolink does not plan to extend its services to Victorville, continuing rail passengers would be compelled to transfer trains. Most people going to destinations in and around San Bernardino would need to transfer to local buses. All this would make the service very inconvenient, likely reducing its market potential to a point where it would prove extremely difficult to attract even 50 riders per train. For all these reasons – relatively high cost combined with long travel times – the project team does not consider commuter rail to be a viable short-term service option unless significant track improvements, aimed at decreasing travel times, are undertaken.