SHORT RANGE
TRANSIT PLAN
FY 10/11-14/15
Golden Empire Transit District 1830 Golden State Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 661-324-9874 www.getbus.org
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ...... 2
Section 1: System Description ...... 3
Section 2: Service & Performance Standards...... 17
Section 3: Service Analysis...... 25
Section 4: Previous Service Revisions 2009-2010...... 83
Section 5: Recommended Service Plan...... 85
Section 6: Financial Plan...... 99
GOLDEN EMPIRE TRANSIT DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Howard Silver Kathleen Ashland Norris Ledbetter Chuck Michel Patricia Norris Chair Vice Chair City of Bakersfield County of Kern At-Large City of Bakersfield County of Kern Representative Representative Representative Representative Representative
Karen King CEO
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 1
INTRODUCTION
The Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) is the primary planning document which guides the routine decisions associated with operating a public transit system. This document is updated annually to chart the course of the agency over a five-year period. Updating the plan annually reveals deficiencies in the current service and suggests improvements to the public transit service. Most important, the objective of the Plan is to achieve the District’s goals by following the Mission Statement, which appears below.
MISSION STATEMENT
Golden Empire Transit District’s mission is to consistently provide safe, accessible, reliable, and affordable public transportation to diverse customers in the greater Bakersfield area.
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 2 Chapter 1 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
1.1.0 Overview of the System
The Golden Empire Transit District was formed in July 1973 and provides public transportation for greater Bakersfield, California. The District is the primary public transportation provider for the Bakersfield Urbanized Area. (The Kern Regional Transit system, operated by the County of Kern, serves the community of Lamont, which is part of the Bakersfield Urbanized Area, as defined by the Census Bureau.) The District’s legal boundary includes all of the area within the Bakersfield city limits as well as adjacent unincorporated areas. The area within the District’s boundaries is 160 square miles. The area within one-half mile of a fixed route is approximately 119 square miles. The population of the District has doubled since 1980 and is 452,671. Population trends are shown below:
1980: 226,038 GET DISTRICT POPULATION 1990: 305,675
2000: 369,417 500000 2001: 373,850 400000 2002: 378,336 300000 2003: 382,876 200000 2004: 394,362 100000 2005: 408,165 0 2006: 422,450
2007: 437,236 1980 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2008: 445,981 2009: 452,671 2010: 459,461
Seventy-four percent of the District’s population resides within the Bakersfield City limits and the remainder is in the unincorporated Kern County areas, including Oildale, Greenfield, Fruitvale, Greenacres, and Rosedale.
The Golden Empire Transit District is governed by a five-member Board of Directors. Two members are appointed by the Bakersfield City Council, two members are appointed by the Kern County Board of Supervisors, and one member is appointed at-large by the four other Board members.
The District operates 18 fixed routes, 1 limited route, and 1 express route. Service is provided from approximately 6:00AM to 11:00PM Monday through Friday, 6:00AM to 7:00PM on Saturdays, and 7:00AM to 7:00PM on Sundays. Eleven routes provide weekday evening service.. Sunday service is provided on twelve routes. Weekday headways range from 15 minute peak service to 60 minutes. The District also provides paratransit transportation for ADA-eligible persons (GET-A-
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 3 Lift) as well as those who ride to and from the William Thomas Terminal at Meadows Field. The Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA) also provides dial-a-ride service for seniors and disabled persons in the greater Bakersfield area. The North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District is the designated CTSA.
1.2.0 Fleet
A maximum of 70 buses are operated on weekdays, 53 on Saturdays, and 46 on Sundays. There are 19 GET A Lift vehicles. The following is the District’s active fleet inventory: Year Number of Of Fuel Seating Active Manufacture Type Capacity Vehicles
1997 CNG 25 4 1999 CNG 37 12 2002 CNG 38 17 2005 CNG 38 24 2006 CNG 38 1 2010 CNG 38 27 2007 CNG 9 5 2008 CNG 9 14 All vehicles are wheelchair accessible and all non paratransit vehicles are equipped with bicycle racks.
1.3.0 Fare Structure
The current fare structure (Effective Feb. 1, 2010) is as follows:
Regular Fare (Age 6 & older) $ 1.00 Senior Citizens (Age 65 & older) $ .50 Persons With Disabilities $ .50 Children (Age 5 & under) Free Express Single Ride $ 1.50 Express Reduced Fare Single Ride $ .75 Regular Day Pass $ 2.50 Reduced Fare Day Pass $ 1.25 Express Day Pass $ 3.00 Express Reduced Fare Day Pass $ 1.50 Flash Pass (31-Day Pass) $35.00 Senior/Disabled Flash Pass $17.00 Express 31-Day Pass $40.00 Summer Youth Pass $48.00 GET-A-Lift Single Ride $ 2.00 GET-A-Lift 10-Ride Pass $20.00
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 4 The GFI Odyssey validating fareboxes were installed in March 2010. The Odyssey accepts the full range of modern fare media. Inserted cash is automatically validated without driver intervention, accepting only genuine coins and bills. The Odyssey issues magnetic paper transfers and can process passes and stored ride/value cards.
1.4.0 Facilities
The system includes 1,490 bus stops and two transit centers (Downtown & Southwest),with over 1,400 bus stop signs, 100 shelters, and 500 benches. The operations/maintenance/administrative facility is located at 1830 Golden State Avenue in Bakersfield. Pictures of some of the facilities and a map of the District boundary and a route system map appear on the following pages.
Downtown Transit Center
Shelter
Recycled Bench
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 5
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 6
1.5.0 Customer Services
GET is committed to enhancing mobility options in the Greater Bakersfield area. The following customer services are provided:
Internet - The District maintains a World Wide Web page on the Internet (www.getbus.org), which includes maps and schedules of the transit system.
Information Services - Transit information and trip planning services are provided by phone, via mail or in person. Bus Books are available on buses and at various locations citywide, such as businesses and public buildings. Transit Information tubes have been installed at key bus stops. Passes are also sold at over 30 locations, such as schools and businesses.
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 7 Downtown Information Center - GET operates a customer information center in the Downtown Transit Center. The center offers route information, trip planning, and pass sales.
Outreach and Partnership Programs - GET provides public outreach to groups in the area including seniors, students and disabled groups. Outreach also includes providing information at various events. Customer survey, as well as focus groups, are also used to provide input. Surveys allow public transit operators to include human aspects of service in the evaluation process. Measurements of satisfaction, friendliness, and opinions about services provided are most appropriately collected through customer surveys. Additionally, customer surveys provide an effective way to measure customer expectations and needs, and provide valuable information for quality decision making.
Multi-cultural Programs - GET provides bilingual materials and use of bilingual advertisements to reach, educate, and promote ridership among its multi-cultural communities.
Media Relations - GET interacts with local media to promote existing and new services, programs and issues involving transit. Information is provided in English and Spanish.
1.5.1 Re-Branding Program
The District has been undertaking a re-branding program during the past year. The purpose of the re-branding is to welcome in a new era and clearly communicate the change in the way we do business. Below is the District’s new logo as shown on new bus stop signs that will replace existing signs.
1.6.0 Security & Safety Program
Transit Security Plan - Highly visible security presence is provided at both transit centers. City of Bakersfield Police Dept. and the Kern County Sheriff’s Dept. also assist to provide system-wide protection.
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 8 Video Surveillance System – On- board video surveillance cameras are installed on all buses and at both transit centers. Video surveillance cameras serve as a deterrent to vandalism and other crimes and also assist in incident review.
1.7.0 Organization
Organizational Chart
The District has nearly three hundred employees. Following is the District’s organizational chart.
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 9
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 10
1.8.0 Metropolitan Transportation Planning
As the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) is responsible for implementing the comprehensive transportation planning process for the Bakersfield urban area. An integral element of the planning process is the Overall Work Program’s (OWP) annual adoption. The OWP contains a detailed narrative of all Kern COG planning activities, as well as related planning responsibilities of local, state and federal governments. The OWP is designed to clarify the planning process and serves as the basis for applications for state and federal funding. The OWP contains a detailed narrative of all Kern COG planning activities, as well as related planning responsibilities of local, state and federal governments. The OWP is designed to clarify the planning process and serves as the basis for applications for state and federal funding. Kern COG is required to prepare the long range (20-25 year) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) that establishes a set of transportation goals, policies, and actions to guide development of the multimodal systems in Kern County. The adopted RTP establishes a basis on which funding applications are evaluated. Use of any state or federal funds by local agencies must conform with the RTP. Similarly, Kern COG is required to annually develop and endorse the Regional Transportation Improvement Program.
Kern COG’s responsibilities in relation to the Golden Empire Transit (GET) District, as cited in the Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 151 / Thursday, Aug. 6, 1981, are as follows:
1. Kern COG, in cooperation with the state of California and GET (a publicly owned operator of mass transportation), shall be responsible for carrying out the urban transportation process.
2. Kern COG, in cooperation with the state of California and GET, shall develop work programs;
3. Kern COG shall be the forum for cooperative decision making by principal elected officials of general purpose local government; and
4. Kern COG shall annually endorse the transportation plan and programs required in the Federal Register.
1.9.0 Service Data
Data for FY 2007-08 and 2008-09 are shown in the following tables.
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 11
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 12
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 13
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 14
1.10.0 Ridership Profile
The following is a summary of the ridership profile according to the most recent passenger survey completed in September 2009.
Based on the onboard survey data, the “profile” GET rider is between 25 and 44 years of age and more likely female than male. She speaks English at home. She has a household income of less than $20,000 per year. She uses the GET bus book as her primary transit information source. Although she has internet access at home, she did not visit the GET website in the 60 days prior to survey contact. She is neither employed full-time nor a full- time student. This “profile” rider typically rides Route 2 or Route 5, and transfers to another GET bus in order to complete the sample trip. She walks to the bus stop, usually three blocks or less. She rides GET to access a part-time job or attend school five or more times per week, and has been doing this for three years or more. She uses a pass (daily or monthly) and travels at the regular fare level (i.e., non-discounted). She would like to see a bus stop closer to her home or more frequent service. If the requested service improvement was introduced, it would cause the profile rider to make five or more additional trips via GET each week. The “profile” rider selects GET because she does not have a car available or a valid driver license, and therefore is considered ride-dependent. If GET were not available, she would ride with a friend or family member or walk; not making the trip does not appear likely.
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 15
Age - Over one third (37%) of the respondents were between the ages of 25 and 44 years old. The next largest group is 19 to 24 year olds (22%), followed by 45 to 64 year olds (21%). Riders 65 and over were the smallest group (4%).
Gender - Over half (52%) of passengers are female.
Trip Purpose - The trip purposes of GET riders are diverse but focused on work (26%) and school (21%), as well as visiting friends (15%), shopping (14%), health care (13%), and other miscellaneous reasons (13%).
Income – More than two-thirds of all respondents cited an annual household income of less than $20,000. Less trhan 12% cited an income of greater than $35,000 annually.
Driver’s License - A high percentage (68 percent) of bus riders do not have a valid driver license.
Vehicles Available - A very high percentage (71%) of bus riders do not have a vehicle available. More than two-thirds of survey respondents did not have a drivers license.
Frequency of Ridership - More than half of all survey participants were classified as frequent riders, defined as riding five or more times each week. Few (less than 20%) ride two times per week or less. More than 43% of survey respondents cited riding GET for a period of five years or more.
Language - Nearly 84% cited speaking English at home and nearly 14% cited Spanish as their primary language.
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 16 Chapter 2 SERVICE & PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
2.1.0 Introduction
Standards for service evaluation provide an objective basis to make the requisite decisions for sustained operation. Performance analysis is used to: 1) Guide the District in determining where service expansion would be most productive, 2) Make service adjustments when necessary, and 3) Develop the annual budget and budget management. Performance standards for fixed routes are discussed under the following three categories: 1) Service Design, 2) Operating Performance, and 3) Economic/Social/Environmental.
2.2.0 Service Design
Route Coverage: One-half mile spacings are required in built-up areas. This allows for 1/4 mile distance to a route. Spacings of one mile or more are acceptable for routes that serve less densely populated suburban areas. This standard ensures that routes do not overlap covered areas and that transit services are well distributed throughout the District’s jurisdiction.
Street Characteristics: It is preferable for conventional fixed routes to operate on collector or arterial streets.
Directness of Travel: Routes should be designed to provide direct travel wherever possible. Deviations, branches, and one-way loops should be avoided if at all possible. An exception is for checkpoint deviation routes where the nature of this service is to deviate.
Express and Limited Stop Service: Express services, usually separate routes, are designed to move people as fast as possible from one area to a major activity center or Central Business District. These routes normally have a long segment of nonstop operation, usually on a freeway. The establishment of new express service is based on the following criteria:
* Travel time advantage of 15 minutes over local service.
* Minimum of three miles of nonstop operation.
* Potential demand to support off-peak as well as peak service.
Limited stop service will stop only at transfer points or major trip generators.
Residential Density: Small-lot single family housing of 5 dwelling units per acre can generally support local bus service and is therefore required for intermediate (30 min. headways) levels of service. Medium density residential between 7 to 15 dwelling units per acre can support more frequent service. For minimum level of service, there must be at
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 17 least 5 dwelling units per acre. Services other than conventional fixed route (i.e. checkpoint deviation and dial-a-ride) should be considered for areas with 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre.
Bus Stop Spacing: Bus stops shall be placed no less than 6 to 8 stops per mile in built-up areas.
Bus Stop Siting: The key practice for bus stop siting is to properly designate the length, signage, and enforcement of encroachments. Stops should be located at the far side of intersections so that transit vehicles do not impede traffic flow. This standard is to be followed with the exception of special cases where traffic conditions or other circumstances require other configurations. The District’s Transit Facilities Manual shall be used for specifications.
Loading Standard: The objective of scheduled transit service is to provide a seat for every passenger. However, this may not be economically feasible in peak periods. Vehicle loading standards specify the acceptable average number of passengers per vehicle passing the peak load point of a given route during the hour of highest passenger loadings during the day. The standards, which are based on the practical capacities of the vehicles as defined by the equipment specifications, are designed to ensure safety, passenger comfort, and operating efficiency. “Load factor” is the number of passengers on board a vehicle divided by the vehicle’s seating capacity. The maximum load factor shall not exceed 140% of vehicle seating capacity. For express service, the maximum load factor shall not exceed 100% at all times. Since the load factor is an average, individual trips may exceed the average during a particular operating period. Load factors greater than 100% on particular trips should not be tolerated for more than 20 minutes. When more than two consecutive trips on a route consistently exceed a seated load, service should be adjusted to reduce passenger crowding. Adjustments include adding a trip, adjusting trip times, or using larger or additional buses, depending on District resources.
Headways: Headways (the time between buses on a route) are based on population densities, major activity centers served, actual or potential route usage, schedule design considerations, timed transfer considerations, and District resources. Sixty minutes (weekdays) shall be the maximum amount of time between buses on all routes. Clock headways (those divisible by 60 minutes) will be used wherever feasible, since schedules are easier to understand and remember if buses leave at the same times each hour.
Passenger Shelters: Shelters should be installed at stop locations where: 1) passenger volumes exceed 40 boardings per day, 2) bus stops are located at major transfer points, or 3) bus stops are located adjacent to schools, shopping, medical facilities, senior citizen housing, community and recreation centers, and disabled residents. Shelters may also be installed at existing or proposed bus stops adjacent to specific developments by the developer/owner as a transit amenity and air quality mitigation measure. Such installations must be coordinated with GET.
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 18 Benches: Benches should be provided at bus stops where 20 or more passengers board per day. A bench should be provided where 10 or more senior citizens or disabled persons board per day.
Transit Centers: The following criteria will apply to a transit center:
* Transit centers will be strategically located to enhance the operation of a timed- transfer system. Priority will be given to placing centers at major traffic generator sites.
* Transit centers must be large enough to accommodate the maximum number of buses that may be there at one time. This is usually greater than the number of routes serving the center since it must account for buses going different directions on the same route and terminating routes where more than one bus may be laying over at the same time.
* The centers shall provide for shelter and sufficient space to allow passengers to board and transfer comfortably. Other desirable amenities include pay phones, schedule and route information, and restrooms. Each transit center will be well lighted to ensure the safety of drivers and passengers.
* Transit centers at major commercial centers will be located as close to the entrance as feasible. Conflicts between buses, autos, and pedestrians shall be minimized.
2.3.0 Operating Performance
Incidents: Safety is the highest priority in all departments of the District. No operating requirement or other activity will take precedence. It is District policy that every incident involving vehicles, passengers, or District personnel be reported immediately. All incidents are analyzed to determine possible remedial and follow-up actions as necessary.
On-Time Performance: Schedules should be constructed so that sufficient time is available under normal traffic conditions to complete the trip on time. Where street traffic varies by day of the week or hour of the day, schedules should be adjusted accordingly. In instances where schedule adherence becomes difficult in peaks by reason of general traffic congestion, schedules for that particular situation should be modified or traffic officials should be urged to remedy the problems causing the congestion. Ninety-five percent of all trips on each route shall run zero minutes early to five minutes late. Under no circumstances should buses run ahead of schedule.
Missed Trips: At least 99.25% of all scheduled trips should be completed.
System Failures: There should be at least 10,000 miles between calls due to system failures.
2.3.1 Economic/Social/Environmental
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 19 Passengers Per Revenue Vehicle Hour: Each route shall perform at no less than 60% of the system average.
Revenue/Cost: The system should achieve a net revenue/cost ratio of at least 20%.
Vehicle Cleanliness: The complete interior of each bus shall be cleaned daily and the exterior shall be cleaned every other day.
Heating/Cooling: One hundred percent of the daily active fleet shall have functioning heaters when the temperature is less than 60 degrees Fahrenheit and functioning air conditioners when the temperature exceeds 85 degrees Fahrenheit.
2.4.0 Special Services
Special services are those which do not conform to the characteristics of the regular services provided by the District and therefore require separate evaluation criteria. Included in this category are: 1) Existing service requiring additional vehicle hours in order to serve a special event or purpose; 2) Service that requires deviating from a regular route in order to serve a special event; and 3) Special purpose routes. Special services will be considered and evaluated based on the following criteria:
Serving the Public Interest: Certain community events require the movement of large groups of people during certain hours of the day. These are events that would otherwise seriously restrict traffic movement unless public transit took an expanded role. Historically, these have been annual events although one-time-only events of sufficient magnitude will be considered as well. A decision to provide such services will be based on an evaluation of available resources and the need for the service.
Cost Effectiveness: The special service must be evaluated on the basis of both operations and system cost, and on the availability of operators and equipment. Advertising trade-out and promotional benefits will be considered.
Patronage Potential: The special service must be evaluated on the basis of expected patronage on the service.
Service That Could Be Provided By Others: Service that could be provided by other transportation providers, such as charter providers, taxis, carpools, vanpools, or other dial- up services must be in compliance with federal charter regulations. Service that warrants alternative modes to buses based on cost, geographic limitations, and potential market penetration will be evaluated.
2.5.0 Performance Standards Applications to Existing Routes
Correcting major service inadequacies within the current service area takes precedence over providing service to new areas. The public, as the primary customer and beneficiary
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 20 of transit service, shall have input into the planning, design, and implementation of new service and the modification of existing service.
The major criterion for continuation/discontinuation of service should be productivity in terms of ridership. Each route in the transit system is judged as a separate entity. However, individual routes must be evaluated with the understanding that routes are interrelated with respect to transfer passengers and the success of the system as a whole. Therefore, a system average is established against which the performance of each route is measured.
Service standards are applied annually as part of the Annual Five-Year Plan Update, which also identifies potential service changes. Implementation of major service changes takes place semiannually concurrent with the issuance of new timetables/maps and the start of a new sign-up. Service changes are made only when there is a demonstrable benefit to the public or when it is necessary to reduce operating costs or solve a particular problem. Schedule changes of up to three minutes later and route alignments of no more than 2 blocks may be implemented as necessary between sign-ups and without the reprinting of public timetables/maps.
1) If passengers per hour falls between 80% and 90% of the system average, a review shall be conducted to determine if there are any segments or trips of the route for which corrective action should be taken.
2) If passengers per hour falls between 60% and 80% of the system average, a formal report will be prepared recommending possible courses of action to be taken to improve performance. The corrective actions will include:
a.) Improved Marketing and Information: Poor performance can be a function of inadequate public information. If a new effort is undertaken in this area, at least three months should be allowed before judging its effect.
b.) Needs Analysis: Staff should study the travel desires of the community and collect detailed information to identify ways of making the service more attractive. This may include realignment or schedule adjustments.
3) If passengers per hour falls below 60% of the system average, the following actions will be considered:
a.) A reduction in the service level. Frequency and service span adjustments are preferable to elimination of a route, though the requirements of timed transfers must be considered.
b.) Service alternatives other than conventional fixed route will be explored (i.e. demand-response, checkpoint deviation).
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 21 c.) If it is determined that the particular service requires relatively minimal resources and that the overall system can “carry” the substandard ridership, it might be continued on a six-month review basis by a directive of management.
d.) If continuation would require an unacceptable allocation of the system’s resources (i.e. 10% decrease in revenue/cost ratio ), and other alternatives are not feasible, the route should be terminated.
4.) If passengers per hour performs above the system average, the following actions shall be taken:
a.) Consider frequency improvements.
b.) Analyze weak and strong segments for any adjustments, such as headway improvements and deletion of weak segments.
2.6.0 Evaluation Standards for New Service & Extensions
For new routes as well as trips added to existing routes, a period of 1-2 years should be provided during which less than normal ridership is to be expected. If new service fails to perform at 60% of the system average in passengers per hour after one year, a decision will be made to extend the trial period for up to one additional year, modify the service, or discontinue service. An exception to this rule is when a community or group is willing to participate in sharing the ongoing cost of the new service. However, a substantial need for the service would still have to be demonstrated because resources could be reallocated to other routes and areas which show a greater need.
2.6.1 Standards for Provision of Service to New Areas
The provision of transit service to a development depends on: 1) the availability of resources to provide the service; 2) actual market demand; and 3) the design of the development. District staff will review tentative tract maps and site plans for input. This input will be used to ensure adequate transit access to new facilities or to allow the District to take advantage of joint development opportunities.
New service to a development will be based on the following transit-friendly characteristics:
Density and Compactness: Higher densities and compact patterns of development lead to higher usage of transit (see prior discussion on residential densities). Transit cannot be efficient if origins and destinations are thinly spread throughout a region. Small- lot single family housing of 5 dwelling units per acre can generally support local bus service and is therefore required for intermediate (30 min. headways) levels of service. Medium density residential between 7 to 15 dwelling units can support more frequent service. For minimum level of service, there must be at least 5 dwelling units per acre. Services other than conventional fixed route (i.e. checkpoint deviation and dial-a-ride) should be considered for areas with 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre.
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 22
Land Use Diversity: Incorporate mixed, compatible land uses into all zoning districts. Permit the combining of complementary office, service, residential, and retail uses. Mixed land uses can reduce the need for and the number of auto trips, encourage walking between land uses, and encourage public transportation usage. Service will be provided to all major commercial centers, hospitals, and major employers. However, size alone may not be sufficient to justify service. The nature of the commercial activity, availability of free or low cost parking, and the distance of the facility from housing or other commercial centers are all important factors in determining the future success of transit services to any given site. Service to all other major activity centers will be provided if sufficient demand exists.
Pedestrian Access: Physical barriers, such as walls, berms, and landscaping between the development and bus stops should be avoided. Parking should be in the rear. Gridlike street patterns are encouraged instead of culs-de-sac and serpentine streets because they create circuitous walks and force buses to meander. Developments and facilities that are improperly designed will not be served.
Site Access: Facilities, such as turnouts, should be considered in the initial design of a road network. High occupancy vehicle lanes and preferential signals should be considered where necessary. Service cannot be provided to facilities which prevent safe and easy access to transit.
Building Location: Locate buildings as close to streets and bus stops as possible, arrange buildings on a site to reduce the walking distance between each building and the nearest transit facility, and cluster buildings around a central pedestrian space to reduce auto driving between buildings.
Parking: Reduce the amount of parking required by developing programs that encourage ridesharing, transit usage, and walking. Locate parking to the side and rear of buildings. Bus stops should be located at major entrances to buildings instead of across parking lots. The Bakersfield Municipal Code includes the following transit credit:
Except for the “central district” and properties zoned C-B and C-C, which already receive a fifty percent reduction under Section 17.58.120, required parking may be reduced by ten percent if there exists a transit facility as defined in Section 17.04.624 within one thousand feet of the front or main customer door of the building that is linked with an improved and paved pedestrian way. (Ord. 4521 § 10, 2008) (Section 17.58.055) Transit facility is defined as a covered structure (bus shelter).
Passenger Amenities: Provide shelters, benches, proper lighting, wheelchair accessibility, and information displays (see prior discussion on passenger shelters).
The District’s Transit Facilities Manual will be used to assist with the selection, design, and placement of various bus facilities and amenities in areas where new bus service is
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 23 proposed as well as where modifications or improvements to existing service are necessary.
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 24 Chapter 3 SERVICE ANALYSIS
3.1.0 Systemwide Ridership Review
Fixed route ridership increased 8% from 6.97 million in FY 2007-08 to 7.51 million in FY 2008-09, setting an all-time record. The previous record was in FY 2001/02 when 7.16 million boarded. Total boardings since FY 75/76 are shown below.
Saturday ridership averaged 13,354 per day-an increase of 728 per day from the previous year, and is 54% of weekday ridership. Weekdays averaged 24,591 per day- an increase of 1,835 per day from FY 2007-08. Weekday boardings have increased by 3,882 during the past two years. Sunday service averaged 9,328 boardings per day, an increase of 845 from FY 2007-08. Evening ridership averaged 1,628 boardings per evening, which was an increase of 160.
G.E.T. TOTAL RIDERSHIP-FIXED ROUTES
8,000,000
7,000,000
6,000,000
5,000,000
4,000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
- 75/76 77/78 79/80 81/82 83/84 85/86 87/88 89/90 91/92 93/94 95/96 97/98 99/00 01/02 03/04 05/06 07/08
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 25
PASSENGERS PER WEEKDAY
30,000
25,000
20,000 06/07 15,000 07/08 08/09 10,000
5,000
0 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 26 PASSENGERS PER SATURDAY
20,000
15,000 06/07 10,000 07/08 08/09 5,000
0 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
PASSENGERS PER SUNDAY
12,000 10,000 8,000 06/07 6,000 07/08 4,000 08/09 2,000 0 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
3.2.0 Ridership By Fare Category
Nearly 3.2 million boardings were related to Day Passes, which accounts for 42% of total boardings. This is a 6% increase from FY 2008-09 and has grown by 17% in the past two years. Pre-coded senior/special rider day pass boardings increased by 20%, higher than any other fare category. Pre-coded passes are purchased by local agencies who distribute them to their clients. Full fare ($.90) cash rides increased 3% and accounted for 15% of all boardings. Disabled/Senior cash fare ($.40) boardings remained the same between FY 2007-08 and FY 2008-09 and account for only 1% of all boardings. The Monthly Flash
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 27 Pass category accounts for 35% of total ridership and increased by 12%. The Sizzlin’ Summer Youth Pass, introduced at the end of FY 95/96, generated 61,374 boardings- a 9% increase from FY 2007-08. Free boardings were 7% of the total and increased by 6% from FY 2007-08. The proportion of revenue passengers remained at 93%. The data below provide a detail of fare boardings.
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 28
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 29
Boardings By Fare Type
Manual Day Pass, 11% Regular Day Free, 7% Pass, 26% Summer Youth Pass, 1%
Sr/Disabled Day Pass, 6%
Flash Pass, 35% Regular Cash Fare, 15% Sr/Disabled Cash Fare, 1%
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 30
Ridership by fare category for each route is shown in the following table. Boardings on route 92 are predominantly Flash Pass (92%) since the route’s ridership is primarily IKEA employees who use this pass. Route 16 (Ridgeview Limited) has the highest percentage of $.90 cash fares and route 12 is lowest (3%). Excluding route 92, the highest percentage of Flash Pass boardings (44%) occurs on route 17, a limited stop route.
3.3.0 Weekday Ridership
Route 5 continues to rank first in boardings (3,908 per day) and is followed by routes 2 and 8. Route 5 carried 364 more passengers per day, resulting in a 10% increase from the previous year. This is the only route in the system to serve both malls as well as downtown. With the exception of routes 14 and 16, all routes experienced increases from FY 2007-08. Route 17 experienced the largest proportional increase (17%) adding 148 passengers. This route is popular due to its limited stops and high speed. The biggest numerical increase was on route 5 (364 more per day). Route 11 followed with 305 more per day. Routes 2, 5, & 8 carry over 40% of all weekday ridership. Excluding routes 16 and 92,
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 31 route 18 had the lowest weekday boardings (196) followed by route 12 (217). The Ridgeview Limited route was initiated in August 1996 and operates as a “tripper” route, providing service in mornings and afternoons to Ridgeview High School. Route 92 was initiated in October 2008 as an express route to the Tejon Industrial Complex.
The following graph and tables show detailed route data.
PASSENGERS PER WEEKDAY 08/09 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500
PASSENGERS 1,000 500 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 6 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 17 18 92 10/15 ROUTE
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 32
Routes 4 and 17 are the system's most productive routes, measured in passengers per hour. These routes perform at 152% of the system average in passengers per hour (41). Route 17 reported the greatest productivity increase (+6 per hour). Route 8 follows at 34 per hour. Route 4 operates on 20-minute headways between downtown and Bakersfield College via Memorial Hospital & College Heights. Route 17 operates between Southwest Transit Center, Downtown, and Bakersfield College as an express route. Routes 2, 5, 13, and 16 also perform above the system average in passengers per hour. Route 92 is lowest, performing at only 22% of the system average at 6 per hour and is followed by routes 18, 12 and 6 at 15, 17 and 18 per hour. These are the system’s weakest routes. Routes 1, 3, 9, 10, 14, and 15 perform below average but route 3 is at 93% of the average. Routes 10 & 15 were previously interlined but were separated in October 2008. Route 4 was the highest in passengers per mile at 3.7 while route 92 was the lowest at 0.2.
The following graphs and tables show weekday productivity data for each route.
WEEKDAYS PASSENGERS PER HOUR 08/09
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
PASSENGERS PER HOUR PER PASSENGERS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 2 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 /15 9 AVG 10 YS S ROUTE
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 33
WEEKDAYS PASSENGERS PER MILE 08/09
4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0
MILE 1.5 1.0 0.5 PASSENGERS PER 0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 /15 92 VG A 10 S Y S ROUTE
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 34
3.4.0 Saturday Ridership
Route 5 ranks highest in Saturday ridership, averaging 2,408 per day- an increase of 110 from FY 2007-08. Route 2 follows at 1,974 per day and route 8 averages 1,771. These three routes carry nearly one-half of all Saturday ridership. All three routes serve Valley Plaza. Routes 3, 6, 12, 15 & 18 are lowest. Route 12 was lowest at only 54 per day, a decrease of 6 from FY 2007-08 Three other routes (4, 14, 15) decreased in passengers per day from the previous year. Routes 6 and 8 reported the greatest increase in productivity, adding 2 passengers per hour. Routes 1, 10 and 13 decreased by 8 passengers per hour, due to vehicles added to these routes in FY 2008-09. Routes 2, 4, 5, 8, and 13 have the highest productivity while routes 3, 6, 12, 14, and 18 are lowest. Route 4 is the highest, at 145% of the system average. Route 12 performs at only 23% of
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 35 the system average and route 18 is at 32%. Saturday service on route 92 was discontinued in March 2009. Route 4 is the highest in passengers per mile (2.9) while Rt. 18 is lowest at .04.
The following graphs and tables show Saturday productivity data for each route.
SATURDAYS PASSENGERS PER DAY 08/09
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000 PASSENGERS
500
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819 ROUTE
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 36
SATURDAYS PASSENGERS PER HOUR 08/09
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
PASSENGERS PER HOUR PASSENGERS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 92 S AVG SY ROUTE
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 37
SATURDAYS PASSENGERS PER MILE 08/09
3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 MILE 1.0 0.5 0.0 PASSENGERS PER PER PASSENGERS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 92 AVG
SYS ROUTE
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 38
3.5.0 Sunday Ridership
Service was operated on routes 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and15. Sunday service was operated on route 92 from October 2008 to March 2009. Route 5 carries the most passengers (1,834), followed by routes 11, 8, and 2. These four routes carry two-thirds of total Sunday ridership. Routes 5, 8 and 11 rank highest in passengers per hour (31, 24 and 24) and route 5 is highest in passengers per mile (2.3). Routes 10, 14 and 15 are the lowest performers, averaging two-thirds or less of the system average. Routes 4, 8 9, and 11 had the highest productivity increase (+2 per hour) while routes 10 and 13 had the highest decrease (-5), due to vehicles added in FY 2008-09.
The following graphs and tables show Sunday productivity data for each route.
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 39 SUNDAYS PASSENGERS PER DAY 08/09
2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 PASSENGERS 400 200 0 1 2 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 ROUTE
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 40
SUNDAYS PASSENGERS PER HOUR 08/09
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 PASSENGERS PER HOUR PASSENGERS 1 2 4 5 7 8 9 101113141592SYS AVG ROUTE
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 41
SUNDAYS PASSENGERS PER MILE 08/09
2.5 2.0 1.5
MILE 1.0 0.5
PASSENGERS PER PER PASSENGERS 0.0 1245789101113141592SYS AVG ROUTE
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 42
3.6.0 Ridership By Time of Day
Weekday boardings are highest during the midday between 11AM and 4PM. Ridership experiences a gradual hourly decrease after 4PM. On Saturdays midday is highest. On Sundays, the highest boardings occur in early afternoon.
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 43 HOURLY BOARDINGS FOR A TYPICAL WEEKDAY FY 08/09
2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
0 -2 -4 -5 -8 0 AM 7-8 8-9 -1 PM 1 2-3 3 4 5-6 6-7 7 8-9 -1 -11 -7 9 -1 9 0 6 10-1111-122 1 1
HOURLY BOARDINGS FOR A TYPICAL SATURDAY FY 08/09
1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0
-9 0 2 -2 -4 -6 7-8 8 1 -11 PM 1 2-3 3 4-5 5 6-7 -7AM 9- 0 1 6 1 11-1 12-
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 44 HOURLY BOARDINGS FOR A TYPICAL SUNDAY FY 08/09
1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0
-9 1 -2 -4 -6 AM 7-8 8 -1 1 2-3 3 4-5 5 6-7 -7 9-10 0 6 1 11-12 12-1PM
3.6.1 Evening Ridership
Evening service on weeknights was operated on twelve routes. Evening boardings averaged 1,628, which was 161 higher than in FY 2007-08. Ridership was lowest during the cooler months. The highest was in August when 1,920 boarded per evening. Route 2 carried the most riders per evening (285), followed by routes 8 and 5 (229 and 226). Route 15 was lowest at 21 and accounted for only 1% of total evening boardings. Route 4 performed best in evening productivity (23 per hour) and increased by 2 from FY 2007-08. Route 2 follows at 21 per hour. The systemwide average was 15 per hour, an increase of 1 from FY 2007-08. The following graphs and tables show detailed evening data by route & month.
TOTAL PASSENGERS PER WEEKNIGHT
2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN 07/08 08/09
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 45
PASSENGERS PER WEEKNIGHT 08/09
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 124578910111315 10/1592 ROUTE
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 46
WEEKNIGHTS PASSENGERS PER HOUR
20 15 10 5 0 JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN 07/08 08/09
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 47 WEEKNIGHTS PASSENGERS PER HOUR BY ROUTE 25 08/09
20
15
10
5
0
1 2 4 5 7 8 9 1 5 5 2 G 10 1 13 1 /1 9 0 1 S AV Y ROUTE S
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 48
3.7.0 On Time Performance
The District has a standard for on-time performance which states that 95% of all trips should run zero minutes early to five minutes late. During the year over 1.3 million timepoints were observed and 76% met this standard, the same as in FY 2007-08. On- time performance varies widely among routes. Increased traffic and lift boardings are a challenge to meeting this standard. The following tables provide detailed data.
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 49
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 50
3.8.0 Missed Trips
The District has a standard, which states that no more than 0.75% of all scheduled complete or partial trips should be missed. During the year 1,844 reports of missed trips were recorded, which is 0.422% of all scheduled trips for the year. This was a 10% increase in missed trips from FY 2007-08. “Drop Off Only” was the major cause of missed trips, accounting for 76% of the total. Route 2 experienced more missed trips than any other route (32% of all missed trips). Missed trips decreased significantly on route 5 as well as other routes after schedules were adjusted. Furthermore, systemwide missed trips decreased 27% from the first quarter of the fiscal year to the fourth quarter. The following graphs and table show detailed data.
MISSED TRIP REPORTS BY ROUTE 08/09
600
500
400
300
200
100
0 123456789101112131415161718 ROUTE
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 51 MISSED TRIP REASONS 08/09
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0 MECH DRIVER WRG TRAFFIC TRAIN PSNGR ACCDNT DROPOFF BEHIND MISC WAY
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 52
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 53
3.9.0 Financial Performance By Route
The financial performance of each route is listed in the following tables. Performance varies greatly by route. Routes 4 and 17 have the highest operating ratio and the lowest subsidy. The lowest ratios occurred on routes 16 and 18.
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 54
3.10.0 Transit Corridors
A number of corridors can be identified that carry the bulk of the system’s ridership. These are largely located in central and East Bakersfield. These corridors share the following characteristics:
Major arterial streets. Major trip generators. Higher population densities adjacent to the corridors. Bus stops are located approximately every 2 blocks. Commercial activity. Bus routes with attractive headways.
The corridors include the following areas:
Chester Avenue between China Grade Loop and Ming Ave. Roberts Lane between Airport Dr. and N. Chester Ave. California Avenue between Stockdale Hwy. and Mt. Vernon Ave. Niles and Monterey Streets between Union Ave. and Fairfax Rd.
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 55 34th Street and Bernard Street between Q Street and River Blvd. Ming Ave. between New Stine Rd. and Union Ave. Mt. Vernon Ave. between E. California Ave. and Columbus Street.
The corridors are displayed in the following map.
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 56
3.11.0 Load Factors
Surveys were conducted during various time periods on 251 trips in FY 2007-08. The surveys are part of the federal reporting requirements for the National Transit Database (NTD) reports. The surveys are conducted once every three years. Load factors were calculated as part of these surveys. Load factor is the percentage of seats filled at the location that has the highest number of passengers along a route. The average load factor systemwide on weekdays increased from 38% in 04/05 to 42% in FY 2007-08. The highest loads occurred during the midday period and increased from 43% in 04/05 to 50%. The AM peak period increased from 32% to 35% while the PM peak remained at 41%. The “other” time period, which includes evenings, remained at 29%. Saturdays were 24% and Sundays were 31%. Route 2 had the highest load factor (55%), followed by route 5 (51%). The lowest was route 18 (17%).
LOAD FACTORS BY TIME PERIOD 07/08
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
K Y K R S A E Y SAT SUN DA E H D ID P K M M OT AM PEA P W OT T
AM PEAK 35%
MIDDAY 50%
PM PEAK 41%
OTHER 29%
TOT WKDYS 42%
SAT 24%
SUN 31%
ALL TRIPS 39%
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 57 LOAD FACTORS FY 07/08
60% 40% 20% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ROUTE
AVERAGE RT LOAD
1 33% 2 55% 3 49% 4 42% 5 51% 6 29% 7 40% 8 46% 9 37% 10 46% 11 37% 12 37% 13 38% 14 39% 15 21% 16 33% 17 22% 18 17%
3.12.0 Average Trip Length
The average trip length is longest on routes 16 & 17 (6.10 and 5.02 miles). Both routes have limited stops and thus passengers have longer trip lengths. Route 16 is a tripper route to Ridgeview High School. The shortest trip lengths occur on routes 4 and 12 (2.51 and 2.56 miles). Both of these routes are among the shortest in the system. The systemwide average trip length is 3.56 miles.
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 58 RT AVG TRIP LENGTH 1 2.73 2 2.72 3 3.70 4 2.51 5 3.81 6 3.56 7 3.98 8 3.05 9 3.52 10 4.15 11 4.01 12 2.56 13 3.77 14 4.66 15 3.35 16 6.10 17 5.02 18 4.51 SYSTEM 3.56
AVERAGE TRIP LENGTH BY ROUTE
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00 AVR TRIPLENGTH
2.00
1.00
0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718 ROUTE
3.13.0 Route Issues
Route 1:
There have been requests to extend route to Northwest Promenade.
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 59
Route 2:
Route performs above average on all days. Schedule adherence problems due to heavy loads, especially during afternoon (67% on time on weekdays). Highest evening ridership.
Route 3:
No evening or Sunday service. Circuitous one-way loop.
Route 4:
One of the strongest routes in the system- performs well above the system average on weekdays & Saturdays. Highest evening service productivity, performing at 151% of the system average. Experiences frequent full loads.
Route 5:
Highest ridership in the system. Takes a very long time for riders to travel between Bak. College & Downtown. Operates through Wal-Mart East Hills parking lot.
Route 6:
Performs poorly in productivity. Unattractive hourly headways. Unproductive segments.
Route 7:
Performs below the system average. Travels through low density areas. Travels through areas of low transit demand.
Route 8:
Heavy ridership on all days. Performs above the system average on weekdays & Saturdays. Schedule adherence problems on eastern segment.
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 60
Route 9:
Low evening & Saturday productivity.
Route 10:
Long one-way loop. Low evening productivity.
Route 11:
Very slow travel time for riders.
Route 12:
Poor productivity. Lowest productivity in the system on Saturdays (23% of system average,) No indications of ridership growth on Saturdays. One-way loop. Low ridership segments.
Route 13:
Lower travel time due to run time added when route was extended to Wal-Mart Panama Lane.
Route 14:
Poor Saturday and Sunday performance. No evening service. Low ridership on Cal State segment on Saturdays.
Route 15:
Poor Sunday and evening productivity. Low ridership segments on weekends. Long one-way loop.
Route 16:
This route was replaced by Rt. 10 in October 2009.
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 61 Route 17:
High productivity. No weekend service. Ridership decreases significantly when Bakersfield College is not in session. Experiences heavy loads on some trips while other trips are low.
Route 18:
Poor weekday productivity- only 56% of system average. Circuitous one-way loop. Operates through low density, low demand areas.
Route 92:
Low ridership on some trips Does not operate to Famous Footwear entrance.
3.14.0 GET A Lift
GET A Lift ridership was 63,820- a 5% increase from FY 2007-08. Productivity decreased slightly from 2.1 to 2.0 per hour and remained at .14 per mile. The system averaged 218 boardings per weekday, 103 on Saturdays, and 44 on Sundays. Trips by Elderlife clients increased by 1% and accounted for 21% of all boardings. The average trip length decreased from 8.3 miles in FY 2007-08 to 7.6 in FY 2008-09. The following tables and graphs show detailed data.
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 62 GET A LIFT TOTAL RIDERSHIP
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
- 79/80 80/81 81/82 82/83 83/84 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09
GET A LIFT PASSENGERS PER DAY FY 08/09
250
200 WEEKDAYS
150
SATURDAYS 100
50 SUNDAYS
0
L G T C R Y U A J AU SEP OC NOV DE JAN FEB APR M JUN MA
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 63
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 64
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 65
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 66
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 67
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 68
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 69
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 70
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 71
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 72
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 73
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 74
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 75
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 76
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 77
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 78
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 79
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 80 $7.33
.34
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 81 Chapter 4 PREVIOUS SERVICE REVISIONS (FY2009-2010)
The following table provides a description of the service changes implemented during FY 2009-10. The service changes were implemented with the following goals:
Improve schedule adherence Eliminate unproductive service. Serve new trip generators. Eliminate operation on streets that are not conducive to bus operations.
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 82
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 83
Chapter 5 RECOMMENDED SERVICE PLAN
5.1.0 Introduction
Three factors within the District’s control influence ridership: service design, service promotion, and service delivery.
Service design is the most important initial factor in determining whether a person will use transit. If service is not designed to be reasonably frequent, convenient, and fast, people will not use transit regardless of how well it is promoted or how clean and reliable the buses are. Research has shown that service design is more important than external factors in determining transit usage. In all the external factors that affect ridership: population density, the prosperity of the economy, and the number of geographical constraints, transit operators who have experienced dramatic ridership growth vary greatly. Yet certain characteristics of service design were prevalent in all of them: frequent service throughout the day, multi-destinational route networks, and an effort to accommodate many different trip purposes. This echos the results of many marketing surveys, which show that frequency, convenience, and the ability to use transit throughout the day are the major factors influencing transit usage.
Market research has also revealed other pertinent facts. Asked why they use an auto rather than transit, respondents generally cite deficiencies in transit rather than advantages of the auto. This implies that a transit system can significantly increase ridership by addressing these concerns. A national transportation survey made a similar point: people are not in love with autos; they are in love with mobility.
Another consideration in developing the Five-Year Service Plan is how the District can contribute to the quality of life in the Bakersfield area. Effective alternatives to the private auto are needed. Automobile dependency is the source of numerous area problems, including congestion, poor air quality, and inefficient use of land. Higher transit usage helps support development and land use decisions that encourage transit access, generating a positive growth away from total dependency on the automobile.
It is likely that widely dispersed destinations and varied trip purposes will be the norm in the District’s service area. A multi-destinational network of grid and timed-transfer systems can respond to changing travel patterns without a massive restructuring of service. Given such a network, the District can respond to most changes in market conditions by adjusting service levels and fine-tuning established routes. New routes can follow this service design.
The best designed system is useless if the day-to-day service is not operated on schedule. If the public perceives that the buses cannot be depended upon, no amount of marketing will overcome this perception. Therefore, improving schedule reliability is a key factor in
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 84 this plan. On-time performance has always been important, but it is more important than ever as the District is challenged with growth.
In summary, the District is pursuing the Five-Year Service Plan to increase ridership, increase market share, and improve system reliability and productivity. The plan strives to design a product which is more competitive with the auto and more responsive to individual travel needs. Growing problems, such as congestion and air quality, make it imperative that transit capture a much bigger share of the urban travel market. This plan is an effort to offer an attractive alternative to the automobile for all kinds of local trips.
GET will be monitoring route level and system-wide performance indicators to evaluate the effectiveness of the service improvements. Refinements in running time, coordinated transfers, on-time performance, and peak period service enhancements will be developed and implemented as funding allows.
The recommended service plan incorporates current planning issues and activities which impact the District’s service area. The Kern Regional Blueprint Program and SB375/Climate Change are two key activities that affect the District’s planning efforts for effective and efficient service and are discussed below.
5.2.0 Kern Regional Blueprint Program
The Kern Regional Blueprint Program, led by Kern Council of Governments, is part of a larger 8-county San Joaquin Valley wide process. At both the County and Valley levels, the Blueprint process will result in a preferred regional transportation, land use, and environmental vision responding to the many challenges associated with anticipated population growth over the next 40 years.
* Population will nearly triple by the year 2050: The Kern region’s population is projected to grow from today’s population of approximately 800,000 to 1,600,000 by the year 2030, and to 2,100,000 by the year 2050.
* Vehicle miles traveled will nearly triple by the year 2050: In 2008, Kern residents will have logged an estimated 19,400,000 vehicle miles. This number is expected to go up to 34,000,000 in 2030 and 60,000,000 in 2050.
* Households will nearly triple by the year 2050: The Kern region hosts approximately 256,000 households today, but is projected to host 429,000 by the year 2030 and 671,000 by the year 2050.
* Over 90% of Kern’s land is in use: Air space, agriculture, flood plains, oil production, public lands, steep slopes, and urban areas account for the region’s “in use” land, all of which are difficult or
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 85 immovable barriers to expanding residential land uses.
The Kern Regional Blueprint Program applied a thorough, phased approach to engaging the broadest-possible range of community members of all interests and backgrounds. The participation program extended its reach to all corners and pockets of the Kern region to include the public, elected officials, and representatives from a range of organizations and interest groups including public agencies, business and industry, education, social service, environmental, social justice, and many others.
One of the required tasks of the Blueprint process is modeling and displaying potential growth “footprint” scenarios through the year 2050 in visually representative ways. The purpose of the modeling is to support the visioning and education processes as part of public involvement and coordination with local communities’ elected officials and public agency staff. Kern COG uses a combination of computer based Geographic Information System, or “GIS” tools to conduct the modeling. The primary tool, UPlan, developed by the University of California, Davis, is a land use modeling software used to generate future growth models by using population data, general plan land use, along with other attraction layers such as existing urban areas and spheres of influence. The greatest number of participants chose the moderate change scenario, which promotes growth in the city centers.
Kern COG will use the input gathered in the town hall meetings to arrive at a consensus on a blueprint for the Kern region. It will also refine the goals and objectives, guiding principles, performance measures and indicators associated with the participants’ preferred blueprint scenario.
5.3.0 SB 375/Climate Change
In September 2008 the Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 375 to control Climate Change emissions from cars, SUVs, and light duty trucks primarily by creating a more efficient mix and distribution of land use to reduce vehicle miles traveled. In October 2008, the Kern COG board established the Kern Climate Change Task Force to implement SB 375. The Task Force developed a work plan that included an approach to propose an emissions target for the region.
Kern COG maintains a regional transportation model for demonstrating compliance with the Federal Clean Air Act. The model generates emissions based on the forecasted travel and the vehicle fleet mix and corresponding emission rates. The result is an estimate of Carbon Dioxide and other climate change related emissions (Green House Gas). The target must be an ambitious and achievable reduction in GHG emissions. After a statewide target is released, individual regions may negotiate higher or lower targets based on their modeling. A timeline has been developed, and the Air Resources Board (ARB) is expected to release final targets in Fall 2010.
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 86
5.4.0 Recommendations
The service recommendations and policies presented in the SRTP are intended to be supportive of the Kern Regional Blueprint Program and SB325 emissions reductions, and move the region forward in providing a sustainable transportation system. Table 5.1 lists service recommendations. In addition to these recommendations, the following are included in this plan:
Long Range Plan: The Golden Empire Transit District in partnership with the Kern Council of Governments is initiating a metropolitan Bakersfield Transit System Long Range Plan. The Plan is expected to be completed in 2011. The Plan will provide public agency staff and elected officials with information documenting the relationship between population growth in metropolitan Bakersfield, transit ridership demand, funding, and evaluation of current operations and efficiencies. The purpose of the Plan is to address emerging intra- city transit system needs. It will also address connectivity between rural areas and major regional transportation facilities such as the Amtrak train station and Bakersfield’s airports. The Plan includes public outreach to solicit public input on transit needs.
Southwest Transit Center: As was noted in Chapter 3, there is limited space and no room for expansion. A larger site would allow for expansion and ease operation of buses. A new location will require the revision of at least some route alignments.
Bakersfield College: The future relocation of the campus stop to Panorama Drive will require the realignment of some routes.
Service to Employment Clusters: Partnership with major employment clusters will be pursued. Potential employers include County of Kern, City of Bakersfield, Frito-Lay, Target Distribution Center, Lerdo facility, Grimmway Farms, and Bolthouse.
Coordinate With Local Transit Operators: The District will work with area transit operators so that service is coordinated among the many issues that each operator shares. Common issues include the sharing of bus stops, coordination of schedules, urban sprawl, and facilities improvements.
Bus Lanes: Currently, the District has no designated bus lanes. The potential exists for bus lanes to be planned in future highway projects. This will initiate the opportunity for future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service.
Park and Ride Lots: A need has been identified for official Park and Ride lots before new express service is implemented. The District will work to identify potential sites. The District currently has only one official Park and Ride lot, established at the Bakersfield Auto Mall when the Tejon Complex Express (Rt. 92) was initiated in Fall 2008.
New Growth Areas: Many of the new areas within the District are developing beyond
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 87 existing transit routes and are characterized by low density and sprawl. The SRTP provides for limited extension of service to these new areas, including proposed circulator service. However, GET cannot guarantee additional expansion of service over the next five years in order to meet this tremendous growth. Additional service to new areas will be evaluated and implemented when warranted, and as funding allows.
GET-A-Lift: The productivity of GET-A-Lift has remained relatively the same during the past years. Operators have struggled to achieve the mandated 10% recovery ratio. It is recommended that efforts be made to improve efficiency and to maintain existing service levels. These efforts include reduction of no-shows and continual improvements in scheduling.
Mobility/Travel Training: In 2009 the District’s grant application for approximately $467,000 for this program was approved. This program is provided by the Federal Transit Administration Sections 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) and 5317 New Freedom (NF) funds. In 2009 Kern COG adopted the Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan for Kern County and the Program Management Plan. The Coordinated Human Services Transportation Plan highlights potential uses of JARC and NF funds for the Bakersfield urbanized area. The Program Management Plan provides guidelines for local transportation operators to apply for funds to meet those JARC and NF needs. The Section 5316 funds ($335,486) will provide operating assistance for Route 92, which is an express route between Bakersfield and the Tejon Industrial Complex. There are unmet transit needs where workers reside within the metro area and work at remote employment centers where no transit service exists. The District’s goal is to expand express service to those remote employment locations and expand access to jobs from in and outside the metropolitan Bakersfield area. The Section 5317 funds ($131,079) will provide mobility/travel training for people with disabilities to increase mobility options and independence in their daily lives. Approximately 20% of the population within the District boundary has a disability and seniors account for 10% of the population. Mobility training will teach individuals with disabilities how to travel independently on existing modes of public transit. Travel training will focus on educating seniors and individuals with disabilities how to navigate the local bus system safely and confidently throughout the local community. Group outreach activities will be scheduled with agencies that serve people with disabilities and seniors.
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 88
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 89
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 90 5.5.0 Analysis of Major Recommendations in Year 1
The most significant recommendations for Year 1 affect Routes 2, 4, & 8, especially from a cost perspective. Following is a detailed analysis of the proposals for these three routes.
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 91
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 92
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 93
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 94
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 95
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 96 Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 97 Chapter 6 FINANCIAL PLAN
6.1.0 Introduction
The District’s budgets have increased annually as the system responds to increasing consumer demand for transit, in part caused by recessive economic times and shrinking disposable dollars. The financial core to subsidize the District’s public transit service is Transportation Development Act (TDA) Local Transportation Fund (LTF). Between 60 to 75% of LTF subsidizes the cost to operate service. Funds for the LTF are derived from that portion of the local sales and use tax attributed to the County, or one quarter of 1% of the 8.25% sales and use tax rate. Kern Council of Governments apportions these taxes to public transit throughout Kern County. In addition, the TDA authorized the State legislature to budget for State Transit Assistance Fund (STAF), by means of allocating a portion of the sales and use tax on gasoline. In recent years, this fund has grown substantially and is part of the District’s capital and operating assistance.
However, in an attempt to balance the State’s financial problems, the Governor suspended the State Transit Improvement Fund for five years. This action began in 2008-09 and will continue, unless alternate financial means become available. The estimated annual financial impact is approximately $2.3 million dollars. Lost funding reduces the opportunity to increase transit service or to acquire more buses. The action clearly demonstrates transit’s role in relation to all state-funded activities.
In order to receive TDA funding, the District must meet some basic financial performance criteria. First, the District must collect sufficient farebox revenues to pay for 20% of operating expenses. The constraint does not allow for cost inflation or unfunded government mandates. Consequently, fare rates may be adjusted to meet this obligation. Second, this constraint applies to paratransit service but the farebox revenues collected must pay a minimum of 10%. These two conditions have at times limited subsidies and service expansion.
In addition to TDA, the District is a recipient of federal funding. GET is a designated grantee and qualifies for capital funding through Congressional appropriation and budget processes, as administrated by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Funding may be used for capital items only and not transit service expenses. Funding is obtained for specific projects by grant agreements. Funding projections are shown in Table 6.3.
The District received various specialty grants from various sources usually for capital improvements. Usually, funding is project-specific with no continuation agreements.
Table 6.1 depicts a five-year forecast of revenues from various sources and related operating costs of service. As shown, the revenues just meet the TDA farebox revenue requirements and in the out years actions must be taken to correct the ratio. The District implemented fare rate changes in FY 2009-10 in anticipation of revenue shortfalls.
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 98 However, either fare rates changes or changes in service may be taken in order to meet minimum TDA requirements.
Currently no local dedicated funding source is available for public transit. A one-half cent countywide sales tax ballot issue for highway as well as transit improvements failed in November 2006.
6.2.0 Capital Program
Table 6.2 summarizes costs and funding sources for currently identified capital projects from FY 2011 through FY 2015. GET is proposing some significant capital improvements over the next five years.
The total five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for FY 2011 through FY 2015 is projected to cost $21 million as identified in Table 6.2. Capital expenditures include the following:
* Bus Replacements * Solar Power Plant * Various Capital Purchases
6.2.1 Revenue & Non-Revenue Vehicles
GET’s revenue service vehicles include 85 buses and 19 paratransit vehicles. The non- revenue fleet includes 27 active maintenance trucks and support vehicles. Replacement of existing vehicles, when due, is one of the District’s highest capital priorities (Table 6.4).
6.2.3 Passenger Facilities Expansion and Rehabilitation
GET’s passenger facility capital improvement program includes bus stop improvements and replacement of transit passenger amenities such as information signs, benches and shelters.
6.3.0 Transit Revenues
State TDA and STA – In past years, the State Local Transportation Fund (LTF) has been relatively stable; however the most recent 2009-10 fiscal estimates project a 20% revenue decline, even though population growth is increasing, inflation is low. (Table 6.1) The passage of Proposition 111 assured that funds would be made available for STA subject to budget appropriations. Transit operators cannot rely on the availability of STA funds from year to year. The STA estimate was reduced to zero as a result of the state budgetary process.
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 99 Farebox and Other Revenues from Operations – The SRTP envisions an increase in transit service with gains in ridership and farebox revenues. Fare revenues are projected based on ridership forecasts and assume an increase in ridership based on the increases over the last few years. Fares were increased in two phases in FY 2009-10, August 1, 2009 and February 1, 2010. A premium fare for express service was introduced.
The Summer Youth Pass increased from $45 to $48 in 2010.
Table 6.1 reflects GET’s overall operating budget for both fixed-route and demand- responsive service. The SRTP projects an annual operating budget of $ 23.7 million in FY 2010-11 increasing 13% to $26.7 million in FY 2014-15. As shown, fixed-route service is ninety-three percent of the overall operating budget. Funding projections are shown in Table 6.3.
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 100
Table 6.1 Revenues & Expenses
Fiscal Project Costs Budget Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast 2009-10 2010-11 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015
Farebox Revenue: Fixed route $4,813,043 $5,236,428 $5,101,809 $5,383,550 $5,592,740 $5,884,028 Paratransit $119,077 $136,190 $138,914 $141,692 $144,526 $147,416 Other $108,717 $149,622 $154,111 $158,734 $163,496 $168,892 Interest $83,795 $90,000 $92,700 $95,481 $98,345 $100,804
Total $5,124,633 $5,612,240 $5,487,533 $5,779,457 $5,999,107 $6,301,141
Operating Expense Fixed route and other $19,365,984 $22,110,733 $22,763,184 $23,434,943 $24,126,634 $24,838,854 Paratransit $1,082,830 $1,570,733 $1,649,223 $1,731,684 $1,818,269 $1,909,182
Total $20,448,814 $23,681,466 $24,412,407 $25,166,627 $25,944,902 $26,748,036
Operating Deficit (15,324,181) (18,069,226) (18,924,874) (19,387,170) (19,945,796) (20,446,895)
Operations Funding Subsidies: FTA Preventive Maint. 4,314,171 5,021,779 4,514,185 4,739,894 4,976,889 5,225,734 TDA Operations Funding Subsidy $11,010,010 $13,047,447 $14,410,689 $14,647,276 $14,968,906 $15,221,161
Net Operations Deficit 0 (0) 0 0 0 0
Ratio 24.12% 22.69% 21.47% 21.95% 22.11% 22.55%
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 101
Table 6.2 Capital Projects
Fiscal Project Costs Budget Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast 2009-10 2010-11 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 Capital Funding Sources TIGGER $5,000,000 PTMISEA $6,131,105 $2,161,482 CMAQ $3,559,306 ARRA $4,497,000 FTA 5307 $5,891,613 $377,478 $7,480,000 State Homeland Security $381,000 Total $20,460,024 $7,538,960 $0 $0 $7,480,000 $0
Capital Projects 27 CNG bus replacements $13,324,339 $3,465,000 17 CNG bus replacements $2,146,218 $9,350,000 Solar power plant, Adm & Shop $5,000,000 FTA ARRA $3,917,000 14 Paratransit Vehicles $1,120,000 College station $1,800,000 Southwest station $3,500,000 46 Bus Shelters $372,000 42 Fareboxes $580,000 CNG fueling station upgrade $2,200,000 Various capital purchases $2,992,300 $1,038,700 $550,000 $550,000 $550,000 $600,000 State Homeland Security $381,000 Total capital project costs $32,332,857 $9,503,700 $550,000 $550,000 $9,900,000 $600,000
Estimated 5307 and other capital funding $7,538,960 $7,840,518 $8,154,139 $8,480,305 $8,819,517
Table 6.3 Funding Projections
TDA funding required $11,872,833 $1,964,740 $550,000 $550,000 $2,420,000 $600,000
KCOG Est. LTF and STAF $11,902,688 $12,808,622 $12,872,665 $12,937,028 $13,001,714 $13,066,722 Used in operations $11,010,010 -$13,047,447 -$14,410,689 -$14,647,276 -$14,968,906 -$15,221,161
TDA Funding as of 6/30/09 Current year surplus or - deficit $892,678 -$238,825 -$1,538,024 -$1,710,247 -$1,967,193 -$2,154,439 County Accounts $27,314,252 $16,334,097 $14,230,532 $12,242,509 $10,082,261 $5,795,069 County interest $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Available funding $28,206,930 $16,195,272 $12,792,509 $10,632,261 $8,215,069 $3,740,629
Capital projects above $11,872,833 $1,964,740 $550,000 $550,000 $2,420,000 $600,000
Reserve TDA funding $16,334,097 $14,230,532 $12,242,509 $10,082,261 $5,795,069 $3,140,629
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 102
Excess FTA 5307 Funding 2,139,703 3,326,333 3,414,245 -3,976,584 3,593,783 Cumulative FTA 5307 Funding 5,466,036 8,880,281 4,903,696 8,497,480
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 103
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 104
Golden Empire Transit Short Range Transit Plan 10/11-14/15 105