Valley Regional Transit urges Nampa to maintain funding as on‑demand rides hit capacity

Valley Regional Transit officials told the Nampa City Council on Wednesday that system ridership in Canyon County has grown after last year’s service changes, but the on‑demand (microtransit) network is over capacity and the agency needs stable local funding to avoid cutting service.

The agency reported a 27% increase in rides in Canyon County comparing 10 months before and 10 months after a June service change, and said it turned down “almost 800 rides a month” on the on‑demand system because seats were not available at the needed times. Officials said 82% of on‑demand trips either start, end or are fully within Nampa.

Valley Regional Transit (VRT) presented four budget/service scenarios for Nampa: maintain current service; keep on‑demand but cut fixed routes; keep fixed routes but cut on‑demand; expand service (Valley Connect 3); and eliminate transit service. The agency estimated the city’s share of keeping current service at about $747,000 and showed an expansion scenario that would cost roughly $2.6 million and add frequent (15‑minute) service on multiple corridors.

Why it matters: Council members were told cutting on‑demand service would reduce access to grocery stores, medical appointments and jobs, and would shift costs to other public services. VRT said a reduced service scenario would produce fewer boardings in Nampa (tens of thousands fewer) and reduce estimated county economic activity by millions of dollars.

VRT representative Elaine (Valley Regional Transit) summarized the system performance and the outreach VRT conducted: “We turned down almost 800 rides a month on the on‑demand because there’s just not seats available at the right time in the right place,” she said. She added that consolidating several senior center service zones into one “has been a real boom for people who need to travel outside of the zone.”

Agency officials described multiple service components operating in Canyon County: fixed routes (including Routes 40, 42 and 45), on‑demand microtransit, federally required paratransit (ADA complementary paratransit), volunteer driver programs and private nonemergency medical providers. Elaine noted VRT uses U.S. Department of Transportation funding sources (including UZA formula/Section 5307 funds) and that some federal grants require local match and continued local service to secure grant funding.

Council members pressed for more detail on costs and tradeoffs. Councilman David Bills said he is interested in targeted frequency increases on routes that already show ridership, asking whether frequency could be increased on a few routes for modest additional cost. Elaine said VRT can model those options and work with Nampa and neighboring Caldwell to reduce per‑city costs for expansions.

Councilmember Sebastian asked operational questions about route frequency and span; VRT staff said Route 42 runs roughly hourly from early morning to early evening (about 13–14 round trips) and Route 40/45 have more limited service (three morning and three to four afternoon trips). Councilmember Griffin and others raised equity and access concerns for seniors and riders who rely on door‑to‑door Beyond Access services.

VRT officials also described new revenue efforts and partnerships intended to reduce the local funding requirement, including increased fare and advertising revenue, a commercial/residential contribution program, discussions with employers (St. Luke’s, Micron) about contribution agreements, possible TIFIA/TIFIA‑type financing for transit‑oriented developments, and using methane from the wastewater plant for fuel.

Council action: No vote was taken. Mayor and council members agreed to treat the VRT presentation as information for the upcoming budget discussions; staff (Mark Steuer, senior director of development services) was identified as the council contact for follow‑up. Elaine said VRT will provide more detailed cost modeling for targeted frequency increases and partnership scenarios.

Council concerns and near‑term steps: Several members said they want to see more precise cost estimates for specific expansions and comparisons of the relative impact of funding increases versus service changes. VRT urged the council to at least maintain current funding so ridership gains are not lost: “If we stop it, it will take years to recover that ridership because people don’t trust that it will be there and that it will be reliable if it comes back,” Elaine said.

The council will consider the agency’s materials during the municipal budget process over the next two months and has not scheduled a vote.

Ending: VRT staff said they will deliver the requested financial scenarios and service‑level models to Nampa staff; council members asked to be kept informed as VRT and neighboring jurisdictions explore partnership options.