ROGUE VALLEY TRANSIT CONFORMITY
JURISDICTION- CITY OF ASHLAND
APRIL 4, 2007 11:00 AM
3200 Crater Lake Ave. Medford
MINUTES
I.
Attendance and Introductions
City of Ashland- Paula Brown, Anne Seltzer, David Stalheim, David Chapman
RVTD- Julie Brown, Tim D’Alessandro, Maria Rizzo, Steve Maluk, Paige West
RVCOG- Steve Rehn
II.
Background Information Report
1. Purpose of Long Range Plan- To prepare RVTD for future revenue and service scenarios.
Currently meeting with member jurisdictions to discuss transit goals and needs. RVTD
service costs are exceeding revenue levels. Additional funding sources must be secured to
provide the transit service the community needs.
2. Population and Job Density analysis- Transit planning: Productivity (Maximizing
efficiency by serving densely populated corridors) versus Coverage (providing transit to
all areas of a community including low densities). Efficient transit relies on land use
densities of at least 20 people per acre (Urban Land Institute); Ashland currently has
approximately 55 out of 2,500 acres within a ¼ mile of route 10 matching or exceeding
this density requirement. Several areas have already expanded, have become more dense
and have immediate needs, others areas are expecting future growth.

Immediate Needs: N. Mountain Ave. has a large established neighborhood, a youth
center and Mt. Meadows assisted living facility. The Ashland Community Hospital
and surrounding neighborhoods.

Future Needs- The area with Crowson Rd and Oak Knoll has a planned employment
center and neighborhood development. An Intermodal transfer center is planned near
the A St. Marketplace to be built within the LRP timeline.
III.
Review Ashland’s transit-related adopted plans
1. City of Ashland transit goals- The City has several planning documents that provide
transit goals: TSP, Comprehensive Plan, Transit Options for a Livable Ashland and
Ashland in Action Committee reports. Eight routes are proposed within these documents
(routes named 5-12) including three that provide service along the main corridor of
Ashland/Lithia and Siskiyou providing 7.5 minute service (routes 5, 6, 10); four that
provide service to the outlaying neighborhoods (routes 7, 8, 9, 11); and one that provides
express service using the I-5 Freeway (route 12).
The City’s main goal is to reduce reliance on the automobile by providing convenient and
safe alternatives. Frequency was stated to be very important and 15-minute service
would initially accomplish that goal. The City would also like to see feeder services from
the neighborhoods to the main route but they do not want it to become a ‘taxi service’.
Another goal is to have access to the rest of the valley for those who commute to and
from Ashland. Lastly, a goal is to have extended hours for SOU, OSF and other activities
that run later into the evening.
2. Coverage and Productivity service
The City of Ashland has unique geography with hillside neighborhoods, which impacts
RVTD’s ability to provide service using the full size buses. Full size buses have
difficulty navigating narrow streets and would become unsafe both to passengers and
other users of the road during adverse weather conditions such as ice and snow. Due to
this and the current ridership demand RVTD would rather see a Demand Response
service to the outlying neighborhoods to start that could eventually become fixed route
feeder service utilizing smaller vehicles.
IV.
Prioritize service as part of RVTD’s Long Range plan
Priorities are:

Reinstate route 5, possibly re-routing it to serve other areas

Provide extended peak hour service until 10pm

Coordinate with other agencies, employers, SOU, assisted living facilities, visitors
and convention bureau etc. to provide Demand Response feeder services.

Review the subsidy Ashland provides RVTD to see if it’s the best use of funds
(compared to dedicating it to route 5 or a trolley shuttle; providing employers
with bus pass subsidy; providing citizens with fare, etc.)
V.
Additional transit supportive projects
1. Service standards- Discussed as part of the population density seen along route 10 and
throughout Ashland; areas that would support fixed-route based on population densities
were discussed.
2. Low-Density vs Demand Response - ADA access is required within ¾ mile of any fixedroute transportation regardless of who operates it; it’s an expensive service that RVTD is
providing currently as Valley Lift. Valley Lift is reviewing the client qualifications
process to give RVTD more oversight and management of a client’s eligibility, such as
hiring a physical and mental therapist to partly determine a person’s eligibility.
Additionally, the City of Ashland can provide better access by continuing to improve
sidewalk connectivity (a major factor in a clients eligibility is whether they have sidewalk
access to the transit stop).
3. Intermodal Station (s)- One is being planned in the railroad district near A St.
Marketplace. Satellite transfer stations - SOU is a major destination and route 10 could
turn around near Walker but would require a place to drop passengers who are
transferring. Feeder service to neighborhoods may need satellite stations.
4. Ashland Park and Ride (s) – Was not discussed but is being planned near Exit 19.
5. Passenger Amenities- The City has been providing shelters and concrete pads; we could
also partner on signage and installing pads in other high demand areas.
6. Additional Ideas- Electric Buses could be purchased and used within Ashland and
‘fueled’ using Ashland Electric Department electricity. Trolley’s that have ADA lifts
could also be purchased by Ashland and operated by RVTD.
VI.
TDM
1. SOU/ Employer trip reduction – SOU is the largest trip generator within the City of
Ashland. The City could talk with their administration about providing compensation to
expand transit service or adopt other trip reduction strategies. In 2005-2006 RVTD
worked with several Capstone students to establish trip reduction strategies on campus, a
representative survey was conducted showing a strong demand for transit and the ability
to pay for it out of student and parking fees. SOU’s Student government and
Administration have not adopted a bus pass program and have not provided additional
compensation for Ashland’s extended service or fare buy-down. The City was interested
in taking a stronger role in bringing SOU in as a partner.
2. Employer trip reduction programs were discussed including the ability for the City of
Ashland to adopt regulatory strategies. One example is to enlist employers with 200 or
more employees into a trip reduction program with the City being the first. OSF, SOU
and the Ashland Community Hospital were considered as the top employers that could
adopt trip reduction programs.
3. K-12 trip reduction- Fixed-route services cannot use buses without ADA equipment and
there are limitations with providing services to children of a certain age. (External Note:
The school district could assist in other areas such as Safe Routes to School and
carpooling programs.)
4. Marketing- Was not discussed
VII.
Next Steps
RVTD will provide the City of Ashland with route 5 cost scenarios.

RVTD will provide a series of other fare buy-down opportunities.

The City will talk with SOU about providing compensation to the City or RVTD
to expand/ support current service now and in the future.

The City will consider applying for a grant to assist in the coordination of all
transportation providers within the City to expand service coverage.

They City will consider regulatory strategies for encouraging trip reduction.

Work with Ashland City Council to negotiate the next contract due in June.